SOURCES:

Revised Penal Code (Book I) by Luis Reyes

Jurisprudence

Tips in answering Fiscal Carillo’s Exam:

Principles(s)
Application of the law

REQUIREMENTS:
3 Major Examinations,
Oral

Examinations/Quiz
Q: Timothy was unhappily married to Maria. He left her and joined the Mormons. He became a dedicated missionary spreading
the gospel of Brigham Young. One day he arrived in a town to do missionary work and met Clara. They fell in love with each
other. Timothy honestly believed that his conversion to the Mormon religion allowed him to have more than one wife. Without
his first marriage to Maria dissolved, Timothy married Clara. Timothy was charged with bigamy. Timothy is:

a) Criminally liable because his mistake in the interpretation of the law does not excuse him from its effects.
b) Criminally because his misapprehension of the facts caused an injury that would result in criminal liability
c) Criminally liable because his imprudence resulted in a culpable felony
d) Criminally liable because good faith is not a defense in the case of felonies

• ANSWER
• PRINCIPLE OF LAW: “One who commits an intentional felony is liable for all the natural and logical consequences
that may result therefrom, whether foreseen, intended or not.”
• APPLICATION
How does one incur criminal liability? Give an example.

What if you want to kill your classmate because he would not allow you to copy his answers in an exam?
You see this classmate walking with his girlfriend. You say, “This is my chance. I will shoot my classmate.” You shoot your
classmate but you missed in shooting him. Instead, you shot his girlfriend.

Are you liable?

Will you be liable for an intentional or culpable felony?

If the act is an intentional felony, why?
It was not the girlfriend whom you wanted to kill. It was her boyfriend, in this case, your classmate.

Would that not amount to a culpable felony?

In the case of DE JOYA vs. JAIL OF BATANGAS, what did De Joya asked from the Supreme Court?
PP vs. GONZALES?

QUESTION: If I bought a gun with the intent of killing a person without actually killing him, will I be liable for an attempted
murder?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………….

WHAT IS CRIMINAL LAW?

-Defines crimes
-Treats of their nature
-Provides for penalties

Primary Purpose
Prevent harm to society by:
 • Declaring what conduct is criminal
• Describing the punishment to be imposed for such conduct

SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW

-Revised Penal Code
-Special Laws passed by the Legislature
-Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law

There are no common law crimes.

No law = no crime.

Are court decisions and circulars sources of criminal law?

“SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 is not a penal law; hence, Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable. This is just a
clarification of our decision.” (NORMA DE JOYA vs.
THE JAIL WARDEN OF BATANGAS CITY, GR Nos.
159418-19, December 10, 2003)

State’s power to define and punish crimes.

“A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivision of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by
which they may be carried into execution, would partake of a prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the
human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public.”
A state must be able to define and punish crimes. If you place the penalties for crimes in the Constitution, it will tarnish its
characteristic. It will not be brief, broad and definite anymore. If you do that, that will be making our Constitution a broad one.

Limits (1987 Constitution)

-Ex-post facto law (Art. III, Sec. 22)
-Due process (Art. III, Sec. 14 [1])
-Speedy disposition of cases
-Right to bail
-Presumption of innocence
-Self-incrimination
-Double jeopardy

The power of the state to define and punish crimes has a limitation. These are more or less included in our laws. We can find
some of these in the Revised Rules of Court.
LIMITS (Statutory)
-Presumption of innocence
-Informed of the nature and cause of accusation
-To be present and defend in person
-To testify in his own behalf
-Self-incrimination
-To confront / cross-examine

JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES

Jurisdiction – power to hear and decide a controversy.

In criminal cases:
1. Place / Venue
2. Nature of the crime – if penalty is 6 years and 1 day above (RTC); if drug related case, the RTC specially designated as
drug court; if the case consists of a minor?
3. Person committing the crime
 WHEN DOES A COURT ATTAIN JURISDICTION? When the offender surrenders himself; during arraignment; the person
surrendering must do it personally, you cannot send a messenger

CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW:

(1) General (refers to the subject of criminal law; ANYONE
WHO LIVES OR SOJOURN IN THE PHILIPPINE
TERRITORY WILL BE SUBJECT TO PHILIPPINE
CRIMINAL LAW
(2) Territorial (3) Prospective
JURISDICTION
-Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction over military personnel with Courts martial even in times of war as long as the civil
courts are still functioning

GONZALES vs. ABAYA, GR No. 164007, August 10, 2006 RA #7055

GENERAL RULE – AFP, persons subject to military law, who commit crimes or offenses penalized under the Revised Penal
Code, other special penal laws, or local ordinances – civil court.

EXCEPTION – Service-connected offenses – military court

EXCEPTION TO THE EXEPTION – President, interest of justice – civil court

EXCEPTIONS (These are for purposes of international comity)

• Treaties
• Laws of preferential application;
• Sovereigns, Chiefs of State, Ambassadors, Ministers plenipotentiary, ministers residents and charges d’affaires.

Consuls being commercial representatives have no such immunity. They do not enjoy the same immunity enjoyed by the
above-mentioned political agencies
2. TERRITORIAL
Criminal law is applicable only with respect to acts committed within Philippine territory.

Philippine Territory – Archipelagic doctrine

EXCEPTIONS

Article 2 of the RPC:

• Philippine ship / airship
• Forge or counterfeit coins, currency notes, obligations orsecurities (maski pag naa ka gawas sa Pilipinas, liable
gihapon ka!)
• Introduction of items no. 2 into the Philippines
• Public officers or employees / in the exercise of theirfunctions
• Crimes against national security / law of nations (EVEN IF
YOU COMMIT REBELLION OUTSIDE THE PHILIPPINES, TENDING TO INDUCE FOREIGNERS TO COMMIT SUCH CRIME,
YOU WILL STILL BE CRIMINALLY LIABLE ;
Piracy)

3. PROSPECTIVE
-a penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in…….

EXCEPTION
When the new law is favorable to the accused
NOT APPLICABLE (Exception to the exception):
• Express prohibition;
• Habitual criminal
REPEAL
• If the repeal makes the penalty lighter, the new law shall be applied. (Exception, retroactive, favourable)
• If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the old law shall be applied. (General law, no retroactive effect, not
favorable)
• If the new law totally repeals the existing law, the crime is obliterated. (Exception, retroactive, favourable) ; THOSE
WHO ARE SERVING SENTENCE, YOU RELEASE
THEM ; Anti-Subversion Act was totally repealed; Just becoming a member of an organization that is subversive, you can
be prosecuted, however, this was already repealed so their cases were DISMISSED

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

• Against the Government and in favor of the accused.
• Spanish text is ontrolling (OLD CODIGO PENAL)

As in all rules of statutory construction, these rules are applicable only when there is some ambiguity in the interpretation of
the criminal statute

PP vs. GONZALES – What was the crime involved in this case? What particular principle in law would you use if you were
the justice in this case? So what if you can establish that the accused did not commit a felonious act punishable by Article 4 of
the RPC? Would it be correct to say that a felony cannot be punished merely because it is not proven that such felony existed?
ART. 2 EXTENT OF APPLICATION
• (REGISTERED) Philippine ship or airship
• Forge or counterfeit coins, currency notes, obligations or securities;
• Introduction of items in no. 2 into the Philippines;
• Public officers or employees / in the exercise of their functions;
• National security / law of nations

FISCAL CARILLO: Airplane sir, walai labot? Walai labot noh ky wala man dha? Yes or no? (The term “AIRSHIP” is found in
the OLD CODIGO PENAL so the answer is YES,
LABOT)

WHEN COMMITTED ON A PHILIPPINE SHIP OR AIRSHIP.

A person who commits an offense on board a Philippine ship or airship while the same is outside Philippine territory can be tried
by our courts.
Ship or airship must be in international waters.

FORGES OR COUNTERFEITS ANY COIN OR CURRENCY

NOTE, OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES
Making false or counterfeit coins (ART. 163)

A PUBLIC OFFICER/EMPLOYEE, OFFENSE IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS FUNCTIONS.

• Direct bribery (Art. 210)
• Indirect bribery (Art. 211)
• Frauds against the public treasure (Art. 213)
• Malversation (Art. 217)
• Falsification (Art. 171)
• Possession of prohibited interest (Art. 216)
CRIMES AGAINST THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
• Treason (Art. 114)
• Espionage (Art. 117)
• Piracy (Art. 122)

FOREIGN MERCHANT SHIPS

An extension of the territory of the country to which it belongs. In the case of US vs. BULL, a continuing crime on board a
foreign merchant ship sailing to the Philippines is triable by our courts. The condition was still existing when the ship was
within territorial waters.
WHEN A CRIME IS COMMITTED ON BOARD A FOREIGN MERCHANT SHP
International Waters – NOT triable in our courts, an extension of the territory of the country to which the ship belongs.
Territorial Waters – TRIABLE in our courts unless – merely affect things (1) within the vessel or they refer to the (2) internal
management thereof. (ENGLISH RULE)

ENGLISH RULE vs. FRENCH RULE

Crimes committed on board FMV within territorial waters. FRENCH RULE – NOT triable unless it affects peace and security of
the territory
ENGLISH RULE – TRIABLE unless they merely affect things within vessel or refer to internal management thereof. (Take
note: THE MOMENT WE GET AN INFORMATION THAT A FOREIGN MERCHANT VESSEL / AIRSHIP POSSESSES A
PROHIBITED ARTICLE, THE PHILIPPINE COURTS WILL
HAVE JURISDICTION)

EXAMPLE OF ENGLISH RULE

Possession of opium.
If FMV is in transit – NOT TRIABLE
If Philippines is destination – TRIABLE
SMOKING OPIUM – triable regardless
OPIUM IS LANDED ON PHILIPPINE SOIL- triable regardless
(See PP vs. WONG CHENG, PP vs. LOOK CHAW & PP vs.
AH SING)
THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN ABANDONED TODAY. WHAT
IS CONTROLLING AT PRESENT IS R.A. 9165

ART. 3. FELONIES
FELONY is the technical term for violations of the RPC.
ELEMENTS:
• Act or omission;
 • Punishable by the RPC;
• There is dolo or culpa

ACT OR OMISSION

Act pertains to “any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world.” (PP vs. GONZALES)

ACTS

OVERT – done openly, external (not internal), must have a direct connection with the felony committed.

Is the act of buying a gun a crime? You bought a gun because you are going to commit a crime. You bought it for the purpose
of self-defense. You bought it because you want to join a shooting competition. Even when you draw pistol (loaded) or you
just want to threaten a person, IT IS STILL
AN EQUIVOCAL ACT.

OMISSION
Omission refers to inaction or the failure to perform a positive duty. There must be a law punishing such inaction or failure.

“Mere passive presence at the scene of another’s crime, mere silence and failure to give the alarm, without evidence of
agreement or conspiracy, do not constitute the cooperation…” The only evidence of the state was that
SILVESTRE was with her husband and failure on the part of
SILVESTRE to give an alarm. (PP vs. SILVESTRE)

You see somebody in a remote area in danger of dying. Nadasmagan siya ug truck and you failed to give assistance, you will
be LIABLE under the above rule. (OMISSION)
FELONIES
 DOLO – deceit / malice; deliberate intent
CULPA – fault; no deliberate intent but there is:
• Imprudence – lack of skill, or
• Negligence – lack of foresight

*WHETHER IT BE IMPRUDENCE OR NEGLIGENCE, IT MUST BE VOLUNTARY.

Recall the illustrative case given by Fiscal Carillo

(HOUSEBOY & HOUSEMAID / “Ti-uni ko, ti-uni ko, Sir”)
- Houseboy was only used as an instrument

Why was AH CHONG brought to court? Was he relieved from criminal liability merely because of his belief that he was under
attack? Is there any principle involved in the case of AH CHONG that the Supreme Court used in acquitting him? Was it not an
intentional act on the part of AH CHONG in killing his victim? So, can you say that “GOOD FAITH” is a defense for the crime of
homicide?
OANIS Case
PP vs. VILLACORTA DIEGO vs. CASTILLO

REQUISITES OF DOLO
• FREEDOM – No freedom = not voluntary
• INTELLIGENCE – discern morality of act (your ability to know what is right from wrong; a clinically insane person
cannot be held liable for a criminal act as this is an exempting circumstance; you may not know what is right and wrong
but you may know who is handsome or not)
• INTENT – to commit the felony

INTENT
Being in a state of mind, intent is hard to prove.
 Criminal intent is PRESUMED from the commission of an unlawful act. The decision to adopt a means to arrive at a result is
INTENT. You must look at all the circumstances.

The act of stabbing is an intentional act but there is no criminal intent because the person thought he was defending
himself. (AH CHONG Case)
Because we do not have psychics, we look at all the factors; the circumstances before, during and after the act. So in
another case, you don’t look at the results only. A small scratch on the forehead does not mean that there is an attempted
murder on the person. Look at the weapon used; the part of the body to which the blow was directed and the circumstances
attendant to the felonious act. WE LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT IS READILY OBSERVABLE.
Spouses, brothers and sisters, there is no theft. BECAUSE
THERE IS CO-OWNERSHIP.

GENERAL INTENT vs. SPECIFIC INTENT

Intent as an element of dolo is a general intent.
Specific intent, e.g., intent to gain in theft and robbery, intent to kill in homicide and murder.
MISTAKE OF FACT
• Misapprehension of facts by the person who causes injury to another.
• No criminal liability on the part of the actor because there is no criminal intent.
• Whenever there is good faith, it SUPPLANTS the criminal act. You cannot deny your basic instincts.
MISTAKE OF FACT; Requisites
• Act is LAWFUL had the facts been as the accused believed them to be.
• INTENTION of accused is lawful.
• NO fault or carelessness.

Good faith happens when mistake of fact is present.

 US vs. AH CHONG, March 19, 1910, GR No. 5272 “In broader terms, ignorance or mistake of fact, if such ignorance or
mistake of fact is sufficient to negative a particular intent which under the law is a necessary ingredient of the offense charged
(e.g., in larceny, animus furendi; in murder, malice; in crimes and misdemeanors generally some degree of criminal intent)
“cancel the presumption of intent,” and works an acquittal except in those cases where the circumstances demand a
conviction under the penal provisions touching criminal negligence.”

The circumstances will indicate the intention of the person.

PP vs. OANIS, July 27, 1943, GR No. 47722

In the instant case, appellants, unlike the accused in the instances cited, found no circumstances whatsoever which would
press them to immediate action. The person in the room being then asleep, appellants had ample time and opportunity to
ascertain his identity without hazard to themselves, and could even effect a bloodless arrest if any reasonable effort to that
end had been made, as the victim was unarmed, according to Irene Requinea.
• And a peace officer cannot claim exemption from criminal liability if he uses unnecessary force or violence in
making an arrest.
• The accused were given the benefit of mitigating circumstances

MISTAKE OF FACT vs. MISTAKE OF LAW

This Court, in People vs. Bitdu, carefully distinguished between a mistake of fact, which could be a basis for the defense of
good faith in a bigamy case, from a mistake of law, which does not excuse a person, even a lay person, from liability. Bitdu
held that even if the accused, who had obtained a divorce under the Mohammedan custom, honestly believed that in
contracting her second marriage, she was not omitting any violation of the law, and that she had no criminal intent, the
same does not justify her act. (DIEGO vs. CASTILLO, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1673, August 11, 2004)

GOOD FAITH IS A GOOD DEFENSE.

REQUISITES OF CULPA
• Freedom;
• Intelligence;
• Imprudence, Negligence, Lack of foresight or Lack of skill.
CULPA – no intent to cause injury
The offender in culpable felonies must perform an act without intention to cause injury to another.
If the offender intended to cause injury but the result is different from that intended, he is liable for an intentional felony under
Article 4. (INTENTIONAL FELONY = mangligis ni Carillo tungod ky cge siya ug pamusil)

Shooting a person in a running mode is UNLAWFUL. It is wrong for a law enforcer to shoot a running suspect TO
ASCERTAIN WHETHER HE MUST BE ARRESTED OR NOT.
If the person is an ESCAPE PRISONER, killing him MAY be justified.

CRIMES OR OFFENSES PUNISHED BY SPECIAL LAWS

Intent to commit the crime is not required, it is sufficient if the accused had intent to perpetrate the act.
It is sufficient that the prohibited act is done freely or voluntarily.
IF IT IS WRONG BY ITS VERY NATURE, IT IS MALA IN
SE (Good Faith). IF IT IS WRONG BECAUSE THE ACT COMMITTED IS PROHIBITED BY LAW, IT IS MALA PROHIBITA
(Special Penal Laws; Good faith is NOT a defense). As long as you possess the prohibited articles, you are liable.
MALA PROHIBITA – there must be knowledge that the article in possession is prohibited by law

MOTIVE and INTENT

• Motive is the moving power that impels one to action for a definite result
• Intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result.

MOTIVE IS NOT A REQUISITE

Motive is not an essential element of a crime and is, therefore, not necessary for the conviction of the accused.
EXCEPT:
• There is doubt as to the identity of the accused
• There are 2 antagonistic versions
DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE

A punches B and B falls to the ground with an improvised stove sustaining an injury. 12 days later, B died. Is A liable?
I have a swiss-knife and then somebody grabs it and then I injure your hand because I was trying to get back my swissknife.
Am I liable? Does this not fall within the principle that I should be liable for the consequences of my own actions?

You are a member of the 13 Judas gang. Your mortal enemies are the 14 Banal gang. The latter ganged up on you. You are
an expert of MMA. So you defend yourself against their blades. You hurt your own finger. Back to your house, you were
hiding. When you looked at it, that finger was already hanging. 4 days after, the finger starts to blacken. So you go to court
and file a case against the 14-Banal. The contention of the counsel for the 14-Banal was that the victim DID NOT
IMMEDIATELY SEEK FOR MEDICAL ATTENDANCE.
Hence, because of his decision not to seek for medical assistance, the accused-defendants should not be liable. Is the
counsel for the 14-Banal correct?

When does an action result to criminal liability and when does an action not result to criminal liability?

ART. 4 CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Criminal liability is incurred:
• Committing a felony although the wrongful act done is different from what he intended;
• Impossible crime (KILLING AN ALREADY DEAD
PERSON)

RULE ON CRIMINAL LIABILITY

A person who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences that may naturally and logically
result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.

INTENTIONAL FELONY
For this article to apply, the offender must be committing an intentional felony (dolo)
“… different from that which he intended.”
If the offender was committing a culpable felony this article does NOT apply
COMMITTING A FELONY (Acts with criminal intent) If the person is not committing a felony, the article is not applicable.

BINDOY Case– trying to retain a bolo that was taken from the owner.
VILLANUEVA Case – snatching a bolo because of curiosity.

“Although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.”
MISTAKE IN THE IDENTITY – error in personae
MISTAKE IN THE BLOW – aberratio ictus
INJURIOUS RESULT IS GREATER THAN THAT
INTENDED – praeter intentionem

In all three cases, the perpetrator is liable for all the natural and logical consequence that may result from the unlawful act,
whether foreseen or not.

MISTAKE IN INDENTITY – error in personae

A intended to kill B;
A mistakes C for B (darkness); A shoots C, killing him.

A is liable for the death of C, since C’s death is the direct, natural and logical consequence of his felonious act (shooting).

MISTAKE IN THE BLOW – aberratio ictus

X intends to kill Y;
X shoots at Y;
X hits Z (poor aim) killing him.

X is liable for the death of Z, since Z’s death is the direct, natural and logical consequence of his felonious act (shooting Z)
X is also liable for the attempt on Y.
INJURIOUS RESULT IS GREATER THAN THAT INTENDED – Praeter intentionem

• punches B once (no intent to kill);

• falls to the ground hitting his head on the pavement;B dies as a result of the injuries to his head.

A is liable for the death of B, since B’s falling to the ground and hitting his head on the pavement is the direct, natural and
logical consequence of his felonious act (punching).

PP vs. CAGOGO, GR No. 38511, October 6, 1933

“There is nothing to indicate that it was due to some extraneous case. It was clearly the direct consequence of defendants’
felonious act, and the fact that the defendant did not intend to cause so great an injury does not relieve him from the
consequence of his unlawful act, but is merely a mitigating circumstance.“

“Direct, natural and logical”

• “A person who threatens or pursues another with a knife and causes the latter to jump to the river in order to avoid
him and drowns as he did not know how to swim, is liable for the intentional death of that person.” (US vs. VALDEZ , 41
Phil. 497)
• “If the victim had a delicate constitution as he was suffering from tuberculosis and died as a result from the fist-
blows, the person who delivered the said blows is liable for the death.” (PP vs. ILLUSTRE, 54 Phil 594)
• If the death was accelerated by fist blows delivered because the victim was suffering from some internal condition,
the person who delivered the blows is liable for the death. (PP vs.
RODRIGUEZ)
SEGURITAN vs. PP

REFUSAL OF OR UNSKLLFUL MEDICAL TREATMENT

 Where the victim refuses to submit to surgical operation, the person who caused the injuries is still liable as a person is not
obliged to submit to a surgical operation to relieve the accused from the natural or ordinary results of his crime. (US vs.
MARASIGAN)
REFUSAL
“…that he who inflicts the injury is not relieved of responsibility if the wound inflicted is dangerous, that is, calculated to
destroy or endanger life, even though the immediate cause of the death was erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical
treatment…” (PP vs. MOLDES, GR No.
42122, December 1, 1934)

PROXIMATE CAUSE
“that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and
without which the result would not have occurred. The remote cause is not necessarily the proximate cause. It was the
negligence of the bus company that was the proximate cause.” (VDA. DE BATACLAN vs. MEDINA, GR
No. L-10126, October 22, 1957)

A person is NOT liable for all the possible consequences of his act.
• “And there is authority that if the consequences resulted from a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the
criminal act, the offender is not responsible for such consequences.” (PP vs. MARCO, GR Nos. L-28324-5)

EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE

• Active force that intervenes between the felony and the resulting injury;
• The active force must be a distinct act; or
• A fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act;
• The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim
FAULT OR CARELESSNESS OF THE VICTIM
“Malicious act or omission of the victim” (That particular act now becomes the efficient intervening cause)

PP vs. VILLACORTA (GR No. 186412, September 7, 2011) The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural,
and logical consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused. X X X The medical findings, however, lead us to a
distinct possibility that the infection of the wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or between the time Javier
was wounded to the time of his death. The infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime.

IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
The felony intended by the offender is not achieved due to:
• Inherent impossibility
• Employment of inadequate or ineffectual means
IS THIS PUNISHABLE? Yes. Because you are intending to commit a crime. There is a criminal propensity on the part of
offender.

REQUISITES OF AN IMPOSSIBLE CRIME:

• Persons / Property
• Evil Intent
• Inherently impossible / means employed is inadequate or ineffectual.
• Should not constitute another violation of the RPC (The act of pseudomizing a person is a crime of acts of
lasciviousness; Any person can be a victim of rape as long as you insert penis or an object into the mouth)

What is the difference between a finger and a canister? The moral depravity and the criminal intent is the SAME.
AGAINST PERSONS OR PROPERTY
Crimes against persons:
Murder, homicide, physical injuries, rape, etc.

Crimes against property:

Robbery, Theft, Estafa, etc.

Kidnapping / serious illegal detention is a crime against liberty

 Q: Kidnapping a dead body?
A: No criminal liability.

EVIL INTENT
There must be intent to injure another.

INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE
Our laws do not distinguish between legal and physical impossibility.
FACTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY = opening a safe without money inside

INTOD vs. PP
Furthermore, the phrase “inherent impossibility” that is found in Article 4(2) of the RPC makes no distinction between
factual or physical impossibility and legal impossibility. The case of INTOD vs. PP was an impossible crime. Shooting a
space where the intended victim is not present is an impossible crime.
There is no need to distinguish factual from physical impossibility because Philippine law is clear, “INHERENTLY
IMPOSSIBLE”.

PP vs. ENOJA
In another case where the accused who claimed that since they shot the victim after the first shooter had already shot the
victim, they were in effect shooting a person already dead, the Supreme Court called their argument merely speculative.

ART. 5 – DUTY OF JUDGE WHEN SITUATION NOT COVERED BY LAW.

Act is not punished by law – must render a decision according to the law.
EXCESSIVE PENALTIES – must not suspend the execution of sentence
*report to the President through the Department of Justice (DOJ)

ALTERNATIVE PENALTIES NOT ALLOWED

“[s]entences should not be in the alternative. There is nothing in the law which permits courts to impose sentences in the
alternative.” While a judge has the discretion of imposing one or another penalty, he cannot impose both in the alternative. “He
must fix positively and with certainty the particular penalty.”
(ABELLANA vs. PP, GR No. 174654, August 17, 2011)

ART. 6 – STAGES OF EXECUTION

- Consummated - Frustrated - Attempted

CONSUMMATED
All elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present.
MURDER. It is necessary that you kill the victim for there to become a consummated felony.
THEFT. It is necessary that you take possession of the objects you intend to gain.
FACTORS:
• The nature of the offense.
• The elements constituting the felony. - The manner of committing the same.

ARSON
• If any part of the structure is burned (CONSUMMATED)
• If the fire is started but no part of the structure is burned
(FRUSTRATED)
- If no fire has been even started (ATTEMPTED)

ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE

THEFT – gaining possession of the item consummates the felony.
There is no frustrated theft. (VALENZUELA vs. PP, GR No. 1160188, June 21, 2007; Rule of VALENZUELA case is similar
to the ruling of ADIAO case)

MANNER OF COMMITTING THE CRIME

 FORMAL CRIMES – slander and false testimony
MERE ATTEMPT OR PROPOSAL – flight to enemy’s country (ATTEMPT) and corruption of minor (PROPOSAL)
MATERIAL CRIMES – rape, homicide or murder

“In Palaganas v. People, we ruled that when the accused intended to kill his victim, as shown by his use of a deadly weapon
and the wounds he inflicted, but the victim did not die because of timely medical assistance, the crime is frustrated murder or
frustrated homicide. If the victim’s wounds are not fatal, the crime is only attempted murder or attempted homicide.”
(COLINARES vs. PP, GR No. 182748,
December 13, 2011)

FRUSTRATED
Offender performs all the acts of execution that would produce the felony but does not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
ATTEMPTED

DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME
1st Internal Acts – not punishable 2nd External Acts:
a.) Preparatory Acts – generally not punishable;
b.) Acts of Execution – punishable

ATTEMPTED STAGE, Elements

• Commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts.
• Does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony.
• Acts are not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance
• Due to a cause of accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
​
 OVERT CTS
• External Acts;
• Direct connection with the crime intended to be committed. “The overt acts must have an immediate and necessary
relation to the offense.” –VIADA

EQUIVOCAL vs. UNEQUIVOCAL

-drawing a pistol or raising a bolo are equivocal acts. -drawing a pistol, aiming the same at the victim and, with intent to kill,
discharge the firearm at the victim can we say that the acts are not overt acts of homicide/murder.
PP vs. LAMAHANG
“Directly by overt acts”

This element requires that the offender personally execute the commission of the crime.
Inducing another to commit a crime, when the person induced does not accede will not result in criminal liability for the
inducer as the general rule is mere proposal to commit a crime is not punishable.
PP vs. LIZADA
“An overt or external act is defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime,
more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination following its natural course, without
being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator will logically and necessarily
ripen into a concrete offense.”
DOES NOT PERFORM ALL ACTS OF EXECUTION
• If the offender has performed all acts of execution – consummated stage or frustrated stage
• If there is still something else to be done – attempted stage

“By reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.”
- Does not perform all acts of execution due to his own spontaneous desistance – NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
- It is a reward for those “having one foot on the verge of crime, heed the call of their conscience and return to the path of
righteousness.”
 SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE
- Absolves one from the crime he intended to commit NOT from the crime actually committed before the desistance.
PERFORMS ALL ACTS OF EXECUTION
Nothing is left to be done by the offense because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the crime.

In attempted crime, offender never passes the subjective phase.

BELIEF OF THE OFFENDER

“…this Court has held that is not necessary that the accused actually commit all the acts of execution necessary to produce
the death of his victim, but that it is sufficient that he believes that he has committed all said acts. PP vs. SY PIO

US vs. EDUAVE GR No. 12155, February 02, 1917

“A crime cannot be held to be attempted unless the offender, after beginning the commission of the crime by overt acts, is
prevented, against his will, by some outside cause from
performing all of the acts which should produce the crime.”
DESISTANCE AFTER PERFORMING ALL ACTS
“If he has performed all of the acts which should result in the consummation of the crime and voluntarily desists from
proceeding further, it cannot be an attempt.” (Ai. Kaluo-oy niya oi. Molakaw nalang ko.)
PP vs. DAGMAN, GR No. 23133
The murder should be regarded as frustrated because the offenders performed all of the acts of execution which should
precede the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will
of the perpetrators; in this instance, the playing possum by Magbual.

BY REASON OF CAUSES INDEPENDENT OF THE WILL OF THE PERPETRATOR

Felony NOT produced – causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

PP vs. LIZADA
 “An overt or external act is defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime,
more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination following its natural course, without
being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily
ripen into a crime.”
A woman filed a case against a man charging the man with rape. While the complaint was under investigation, they meet
each other in a dark alley just the 2 of them and the man immediately draws his bolo and says to the girl: “I will kill you,
SALAMAMETS”. Then starts hacking at the woman. Woman tries to go away but was still slashed at her back. Woman falls
down and the man says: “I have killed the worst enemy”. The man throws the woman to the garbage. Thereafter, the man goes
home and announced it publicly that he killed someone. Not knowing, the woman was able to crawl from the place of incident to
the hospital. Woman files a case against the man. The man contends as a defense that he was liable only for attempted murder.
What is the liability of the man? Will he be liable for attempted murder or frustrated murder?
Let’s say you and two of your friends are having a drinking session. One of them suddenly says that I am not satisfied with the
government and then you say let us overthrow P-Noy and replace him. The two agree. Is there any criminal liability in this
particular situation? Yes or no? If their plan was to rob? Is there conspiracy? Punishable? Mere conspiracy to commit robbery?
Is this punishable? So you have now decided that you are going to commit rebellion and the 3 of you go to Malacanang. You
parked your car and alighted and said: “ATTACK”. When you reached the gate, didto raka nakibaw nga imong mga kauban
bag-o ra nahuwasan. Wa cla nikuyog nimo. Nagpabilin ra cla sa auto. What is the criminal liability of the three? Ikaw unsa
imong liability? How about the two who remained in the car?
What if the 2nd person who went with you did not shoot his gun but just kept on giving you bullets. So the one who remained in
the car? Must conspiracy be coupled with an external act? What if that person who is left at the car gets out of the car and
starts saying: “Go. Go. Go. Go. Attack.”?

PP vs. EVANGELIO, GR No. 181902, August 31, 2011

To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution; he need not even take part in every act or need
not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy.
Let’s say you are a member of band of robbers. Five of you decide to rob a bank. The first says: I am the only one who has a
driver license. The other one says I have a gun and walkie-talkie. That leaves 3, including you to get inside the bank and to
 get the money from the bank. As the plan was made out, the 2 of you played your roles. You are told by your 2 companions
to watch the employees and the 2 of them will go inside the vault. You noticed that the teller is beautiful and you say:
Lugoson nalang ni nako”. You took with you the teller and bought her inside an office of the bank. You raped her. After, you
left. Then, 5 of you got arrested. Nahibong ang 4 nimo nga kauban nga ang title sa case ky “ROBBERY WITH RAPE”. Tutok
cla nimo.

What is the liability of the other four? Let’s say, they all saw you drag the girl into the office. Ingon mo nga: “Mao bitaw na ang
tripping gyud niya. Wala paman sad na cya kasuway. Pasagdaaan na nato, padayon ta dri ug kawat”. The other four did not
participate in the rape. Will they still be liable?
ART. 7 – LIGHT FELONIES
Punishable only when consummated.
EXCEPT: crimes against persons (SLIGHT PHYSICAL
INJURY, MALTREATMENT) or property

ART. 8 – CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL

• Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it.
• There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other
person or persons

NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
“…are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.” (ART. 8, Par. 1, RPC)
Art. 115. Conspiracy to commit treason
Art. 136. Conspiracy to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or insurrection.
Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition. (this is not so much of overthrowing the government. This is more of a tumultuous
uprising; mere civil disobedience)
 CRIME vs. MANNER OF INCURRING LIABILITY
Treason, coup d’etat, sedition is actually committed – conspiracy is NOT a crime but a manner of incurring criminal
liability.

PD No. 1866 vs. PD No. 8294

CONSPIRACY
“Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it. The essence of conspiracy is the unity of action and purpose. Its elements, like the physical acts constituting the
crime itself, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.”
(QUIDET vs. PP, GR No. 179289, April 8, 2010)

REQUISITES?

INDICATION(s) OF CONSPIRACY
When two or more persons aim their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that
their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative indicating closeness of personal association
and a concurrence of sentiment, conspiracy may be inferred. And where there is conspiracy, the act of one is deemed the act of
all. (PP vs. ALETA, GR No. 179708, April 16, 2009)

*ONE AND THE SAME PURPOSE

DIRECT PROOF NOT REQUIRED

Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found; circumstantial evidence is often resorted to in order to prove its existence. (PP vs.
AMODIA, GR No. 173791, April 7, 2009)
Direct proof that the two accused conspired is not essential as it may be inferred from their conduct before, during, and after
the commission of the crime that they acted with a common purpose and design.
 AMODIA Case
An accused participates as a conspirator if he or she has performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution in the
execution of the crime planned to be committed.
• Active participation
• Moral assistance by being present
• Exercising moral ascendancy

(PP vs. MULIT, GR No. 181043, October 8, 2008) Conspiracy is a unity of purpose and intention in the commission of a
crime. Where a conspiracy is established, the precise modality or extent of participation of each individual conspirator
becomes secondary since the act of one is the act of all. The degree of actual participation in the commission of the crime is
immaterial.

“even if not all the parties committed the same act,”

A conspiracy exists even if not all the parties committed the same act, but the participants performed specific acts that indicated
unity of purpose in accomplishing a criminal design. Moreover, direct proof of previous agreement to commit an offense is not
necessary to prove conspiracy – conspiracy may be proven by circumstantial evidence. (PP vs. MALIBIRAN, GR No. 178301,
April 24,
2009)

PP vs. REYES
PP vs. EVANGELIO
To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution; he need not even take part in every act or need
not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy.

NO CONSPIRACY – separate and individual responsibility In the absence of conspiracy, the liability of the defendants are
separate and individual, each is liable for his own acts, the damage caused thereby, and the consequences thereof. While the
evidence shows that the appellant boxed the deceased, it is, however, silent as to the extent of the injuries, in which case, the
appellant should be held liable only for slight physical injuries.
TWO DIFFERENT CRIMES
“Their acts did not reveal a unity of purpose that is to kill Pasion. Bokingco had already killed Pasion even before he sought Col.
Their moves were not coordinated because while
Bokingco was killing Pasion because of his pent-up anger, Col was attempting to rob the pawnshop.” (PP vs. BOKINGCO)

THE CRIME MUST NOT BE COMMITTED

• If the crime is actually committed, proposal becomes a manner of incurring liability, i.e., principal by inducement.
• Acceptance of the proposal is not necessary.

ART. 9 – GRAVITY OF FELONIES

• Grave
• Less Grave
• Light
GRAVE FELONIES
• Capital Punishment (death)
• Penalties which in any of its period is afflictive. AFFLICTIVE (Art. 25)
• Reclusion Perpetua
• Reclusion Temporal
• Permanent / Temporary Absolute Disqualification
• Permanent / Temporary Special Disqualification
• Prision Mayor
LESS GRAVE FELONIES
• Punishment which in their maximum is correctional. CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES (Art. 25)
• Prision Correcional
• Arresto Mayor
• Suspension
• Destierro (maximum radius of 25 kilometers)
LIGHT FELONIES
• Arresto Menor
• Fine not exceeding P200.00 or both

FELONY – Fine of P200.00, is a light felony.

*Art. 26, RPC - classifies fines as a penalty. (Fine is a light penalty if it is less than P200.00)

ART. 10.
1st Clause. The RPC is not intended to supersede special penal laws
2nd Clause. The RPC is supplementary to special laws, unless the special law provides otherwise.
(GO TAN vs. SPS. TAN, GR No. 168852, September 30, 2008)
• Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes
punished under special laws, such as R.A. No. 9262, in which the special law is silent on a particular matter.
• Provisions of the Revised Penal Code not applicable
Art. 71 of the Revised Penal Code – SCALE OF PENALTIES
Special laws.
• Punishes only consummated acts.
• No definition of accessories or accomplices.
• No formula for graduation of penalties.
• Terms, i.e., penalties are not the same.
• Mitigating / Aggravating circumstances cannot be considered, no graduation of penalties.

CIRCUMSTANCES THAT AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY

 • Justifying (Art. 11)
• Exempting (Art. 12)
• Mitigating (Art. 13)
• Aggravating (Art. 14)
• Alternative (Art. 15)
• Absolutory causes (Minority, Art. 280 last par., violent insanity, Art. 332, Art. 344)

IMPUTABILITY vs. RESONSIBILITY

IMPUTABILITY – quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as the author.
RESPONSIBILITY – obligation of suffering the consequences of crime.
While an act may be imputable to a person, it may not necessarily mean that he would be responsible for the same.

ART. 11 – JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

• In accordance with the law.
• The actor is not considered to have violated the law.
• No criminal OR civil liability
• No crime committed (Just like in the case of AH CHONG. There was no crime committed.)

COLINARES vs. PP, GR No. 182748, December 13, 2011

“When the accused invokes self-defense, he bears the burden of showing that he was legally justified in killing the victim or
inflicting injury to him. The accused must establish the elements of self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. When
successful, the otherwise felonious deed would be excused, mainly predicated on the lack of criminal intent of the accused.”

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
• Self-defense
• Defense of relatives
• Defense of strangers
• Avoidance of a greater evil or injury
• Fulfillment of duty / lawful exercise of right or office
• Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose
SELF-DEFENSE
In defense of his person or rights.

DEFENSE OF PERSON OR RIGHTS

Person includes danger to one’s:
• Life
• Limb
RIGHTS INCLUDES:
• Right to property

SELF-DEFENSE, Requisites
• Unlawful aggression (INDISPENSABLE);
• Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
• Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
This is a condition sine qua non. An essential and indispensable requisite.

No unlawful aggression, no self-defense whether complete or incomplete.

The aggression must be unlawful and actual.

PP vs. CONCILLADO

COLINARES vs. PP

PP vs. GAYRAMA, GR No. 39270, 39271, October 30,

1934
“It cannot be said that there was a previous unlawful aggression…”
 “….taking into consideration the fact that the purpose of the deceased in so doing was to succeed in capturing and arresting
the appellant…”

PP vs. MERCED, GR No. 14170, November 23, 1918

“…that assault was natural and lawful, for the reason that it was made by a deceived and offended husband in order to
defend his honor and rights by punishing the offender of his honor, and if he had killed his wife and the other defendant, he
would have exercised a lawful right,…”

Let’s say, 2 persons. Let’s call them Mr. X and Mr. Y. They are playing cards. X is angry because Y is cheating. That is why Y is
winning. So, after the game, X goes home, gets his knife and then he goes on looking for Y. He sees Y spending his winnings
buying an adobo. Aso2 pa ang adobo ron! Nagkurog2 pa ang tambok! X attacks. He swoops down with a knife but nasangit
man at the back of the chair so si Y, hinanaw man ug sine, also gets out a knife. Turns out that Y is better in using the knife so
he starts slashing X. But si X ingon cya: “Murag, alkansi ko ani da”. So he runs away. So si Y niingon, “Kani. Hinay modagan”.
X falls down. Y kills X. Y is charged. Y says self-defense. If you were the judge, can self-defense be invoked? Who is the
aggressor?

AGGRESSION MUST BE ACTUAL

- An actual assault, or - Threat of an assault of an: -immediate and imminent;
-offensive and positively strong showing the wrongful intent to cause an injury.

ACTUAL AGGRESSION
“Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack on the life and limb of a person or an imminent
danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. The attack must be real, or at least imminent. Mere belief
by a person of an impending attack would not be sufficient.” (BAXINELA vs. PP, GR No. 149652,
March 24, 2006)

ACTUAL OR IMMINENT
ACTUAL – assault with a cane. (US vs. LAUREL)
IMMINENT – rocking a boat coupled with threats of capsizing
the same. (PP vs. CABUNGCAL)
PP vs. MACASO
US vs. FERRER, GR No. 60, November 8, 1901
The unlawful aggression and the defense must be simultaneous / without appreciable interval of time.
“If any time intervened between the supposed attack of the deceased and the firing of the revolver by the defendant, the latter’s
actions would cease to have the true character of a real defense, which, in order to be legally sufficient, requires primarily and
as an essential condition that the attack be immediately present.”

THE NATURE, CHARACTER, LOCATION AND EXTENT OF WOUND / INJURIES.

• Wounds / injuries on the victim would usually indicate whether self-defense is credible or not.
• Wound / injuries on the accused are not as determinative as the injuries on the victim.

CANO vs. PP, GR No. 155258, October 7, 2003

“…the superficiality of the nature of the wounds inflicted on the accused does not, per se, negate self-defense. Indeed, to prove
self-defense, the actual wounding of the person defending himself is not necessary.”

AGE AND CONDITION OF ALLEGED AGGRESSOR

• Accused was 24 while victim was a sexagenarian (Diaz)
• The victim was 55 years old, seriously injured, lost his right hand (Ardiza)

BEHAVIOR IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE INCIDENT

Failure to interpose self-defense after:
Surrendering – Manansala
Confession – De la Cruz

PHYSICAL FINDINGS
Accused claims that when he stabbed the victim they were facing each other. The factual findings establish that the wounds
were in the back of the victim.

The victim still had his gun tucked inside the waistband of the pants and received 13 gunshot wounds. (Perez)
 UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION MUST EXIST AT THE TIME OF THE ACT CONSTITUTING SELF-DEFENSE.
• “a fleeing man is not dangerous to the one from whom he flees.”

• “…it is because this Court considered that the requisites of self-defense had ceased to exist, principal and
indispensable among these being the unlawful aggression of the opponent.”
(PP vs. ALCONGA, April 30, 1947, GR No. L-162)

PP vs. ACOSTA

PP vs. ALETA

If a person is attacked with bare hands, how should that person defend himself? What is the rule as far as reasonable means is
concerned? If he uses a knife or a samurai? If that person has a knife, can you use a gun? What if that person is super black-
belt ninja who can kill with his bare hands? Still, you defense yourself with bare hands?

If you defend yourself by way of shooting the aggressor in his chest? Would that be reasonable? Why? Shoot him three times?
BUNGYAO BUNGYAO BUNGYAO! Or shoot him just once, BUNGYAO? What if the bolo used by the aggressor is dull and
rusty, would you be still justified in killing the person? What is the rule on reasonable necessity? What does the law require?
What is the rule? If it is not mathematical equality or perfect equality, what is sufficient?

“The moment the aggressor ceases, the person defending himself is not anymore justified in killing the said aggressor. There is
no more unlawful aggression.” *Refer to PP vs.
ALCONGA (78 Phil. 366)

PP vs. JUARIGUE
• If ang paa sa lalaki hikapon sa babae? This cannot be. Crimes against chastity is limited only to women.
• She could not have expected that the aggressor would have actually raped her. Kutob ra gyud cguro to ang lalaki
ug hikap-hikap. There was here a lack of sufficient provocation on the part of accused Juarigue.
• Provocation must come from an unjust conduct. Only reasonable necessity was lacking in this case. The Supreme
Court gave JUARIGUE a privileged mitigating circumstance.
PP vs. DE LA CRUZ (GR No. 411487, May 2, 1935)
“In order that legitimate self-defense may be taken into account and sustained as a defense, it is necessary, above all, that the
aggression be real, or at least, imminent, and not merely imaginary.”
US vs. GUY-SAYCO

REASONABLE NECESSITY ELEMENTS:

There must be reasonable necessity in both:
• Course of action taken by the person defending;
• Means used;

Determined by:
• Existence of unlawful aggression and
• The nature and extent of the aggression
If you are attacked with a weapon, circumstances dictate that you find a weapon, whatever said weapon may be.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF AGGRESSION

Striking a person on the head with a lead pipe causing death – mauled with fist blows by several men. (Ocana)

Shooting a person who was playing a practical joke – place was dark and uninhabited, “Lie down and give me your money”.

PP vs. LARA (GR No. 24014, October 16, 1925)

It should be borne in mind that in emergencies of this kind human nature does not act upon processes of formal reason but in
obedience to the instinct of self-preservation and when it is apparent as in this case, that a person has reasonably acted upon
this instinct, it is the duty of the courts to sanction the act and to hold the actor irresponsible in law for the consequences.”

PP vs. MACASAET
“Having concluded, however, that under all the circumstances the accused was justified in making use of his knife to repel the
unprovoked assault as best he could, it would be impossible to say that a second or third blow was unnecessary under all the
circumstances of the case, it appearing that the accused instantly and without hesitation inflicted all the wounds at or about the
same time.” (BLOWS MUST BE DELIVERED RAPIDLY.)

REASONABLE NECESSITY IN THE MEANS USED.

• Rational necessity to employ the means used.
• Perfect equality is not required.
• RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE is what is required.

US vs. APEGO
“…since there was no real need of wounding with the said weapon him who had merely caught her arm.”
“…there was no just nor reasonable cause for striking a blow therewith in the center of the body, whether the principal vital
organs are seated, of the man who had not performed any act which might be considered as an actual attempt against her
honor.”

PP vs. MONTALBO, GR No. 34750, December 31, 1931

RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE
• Nature and quality of the weapon used
• Physical condition, character and size
• Other circumstances of both aggressor and person defending himself
• Place and occasion of assault

RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE, RATIONALE.

Because this justifying circumstance is born by necessity and is resorted only in extreme situations or emergencies, the person
defending himself is not expected to think coolly and clearly. The person defending is, therefore, not expected to control his
blow or draw a distinction as to the injury that would result after he delivers his blow.

PP vs. ONAS

US vs. MENDOZA

US vs. MACK (GR No. L-3515, October 3, 1907)

“…court not reasonably be expected to take the chance that mere ordinary force would be used in striking, or that the blow
would be given upon some protected part of his body, or that the cutting edge of the blade was not keen enough to give him his
death blow.”

“The reasonable and natural thing for him to do under the circumstances was to fire at the body of his opponent, and thus make
sure of his own life.”

PHYSICAL CONDITION, CHARACTER AND SIZE OF THE OPPOSING PARTIES.

“One is not required, when hard pressed, to draw fine distinction as to the extent of the injury which a reckless and infuriated
assailant might probably inflict upon him…” (PP vs. IGNACIO,
GR NO. 40140, November 27, 1933)

WHEN ATTACKED BY AN UNARMED ASSAILANT/S

“…there may be other circumstances, such as the very violence of the attack or a great disparity in the age or physical ability of
the parties, which give deceased (accused) reasonable ground to apprehend danger of death or great bodily harm and justify
him in employing a deadly weapon in self-defense.” (Ignacio)
CANO vs. PEOPLE GR No. 155258, October 7, 2003
PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL vs. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL – prevent or repel aggression.
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFICER – overcome his opponent.

LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION

The person defending must not have by his unjust conduct provoked the aggression sought to be repelled or prevented.

THERE ARE 4 SITUATIONS WHERE THE 3rd REQUISITE IS CONSIDERED PRESENT:

• No provocation
• Provocation was not sufficient
• Was not given by the person defending himself
• Was not immediate or proximate

NEED NOT BE AN ACT OF VIOLENCE

• Challenging one to come out of the house to fight.
(US vs. McCRAY, 2 Phil 5454, PP vs. VALENCIA, L-58426, October 31, 1984)
• Hurling insults or imputing the utterance of vulgar language. (PP vs. SOTELO, 55 Phil 403) But a petty question of
pride does not justify wounding or killing an opponent. (“Why are you calling me?” PP vs. DOLFO)
• Forcibly trying to kiss the sister of the deceased. (GETIDA,
CA)

ADMITS TO THE OFFENSE CHARGED

*Read the case of (PP vs. NUGAS)

PP vs. GENOSA (GR No. 135981, January 15, 2004)

“First, each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to have characterized at least two battering episodes
between the appellant and her intimate partner.
Second, the final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must have produced in the battered person’s mind
an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life.

Third, at the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed probable – not necessarily immediate and actual – grave harm to
the accused, based on the history of violence perpetrated by the former against the latter.”

BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME

In 27 March 2004 of R.A. 9262 took effect.

Sec. 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as a defense.

DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
• Spouse
• Ascendant
• Descendant
• Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister
• Relatives by affinity in the same degrees
-parents-in-law
-son / daughter-in-law
-brother / sister-in-law
• Relatives by consanguinity within 4th degree (2nd degree nga cousin)

The same in self-defense:

• Unlawful aggression
• Reasonable necessity
• “In case there is sufficient provocation, the person defending himself had no part therein”
(US vs. ESMEDIA GR No. L-5749, October 21, 1910) “…inasmuch as it has been shown that they inflicted these wounds upon
him in defense of their father who was fatally wounded at the time. They honestly believed, and had good ground upon which to
found their belief, that Santiago would continue his attack upon their father.”

PP vs. TORING
“it cannot be said, therefore, that in attacking Samuel, Toring was impelled by pure compassion or beneficence of the lawful
desire to avenge the immediate wrong inflicted on his cousin.

PP vs. CAABAY (GR Nos. 129961-62, August 25, 2003)

- Considering the nature, location and number of the wounds sustained by the victims, the appellants’ plea of self-defense
and defense of a relative will not hold.

BALUNUECO vs. CA
• The injuries on the deceased as well as the relatives of the accused belie his testimony
• The accused failed to present himself to the authorities
• Accused recollection of events

DEFENSE OF STRANGERS
• Unlawful aggression
• Reasonable necessity
• “The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.”

CABUSLAY vs. PP

PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF SANITY.

“…that when a defendant in a criminal case interposes the defense of mental incapacity, the burden of establishing that fact
rests upon him, has been adopted in a series of decisions by this
court.” (PEOPLE vs. BASCOS)
BONOAN
• Accused confined at of San Lazaro Hospital twice (1922, 1926)
• Dementia praecox is an exempting circumstance (authorities)
• Insomnia for 4 days before the crime, symptom of or leads to dementia praecox
• A day after his arrest he was sent to the Psychopathic hospital
• Alienist reported that the accused had a form of Pshychosis

COMMISSION vs. TRIAL

Insanity at the time of the commission of the offense is different from insanity at the time of the trial. In the first instance, it is an
exempting circumstance, in the second the accused is not exempt but the proceedings are suspended until the accused is fit to
stand trial.

PP vs. LEGASPI – “mere prior confinement does not prove that accused-appellant was deprived of reason at the time of the
incident.”

“CAUGHT WITH HIS PANTS DOWN”

“Mental depravity which results not from any disease of the mind, but from a perverted condition of the moral system, where the
person is mentally sane, does not exempt one from responsibility for crimes committed under its influence.” (PP vs.
LEGASPI)

**PP vs. MADARANG

**PP vs. OPURAN

MINORITY
RA 9344, Juvenile and Justice Welfare Act (May 20, 2006)

NEW CONCEPTS:
• Age of criminal responsibility
 • Effects
• Presumptions

AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

A child fifteen (15) years of age and under at the time of the commission of the offense is exempt from criminal liability. (Sec.
6)

Child is subject to intervention. Intervention refers to a series of activities which are designed to address issues that cause the
child to commit an offense.

CHILD 15 OR BELOW, INITIAL CONTACT WITH CHILD MUST:

• Release to parents, guardian or nearest relative
• Notify LSWD; determine the appropriate programs
• O/W: (1) NGO, (2) Barangay, (3) Local SWD off or DSWD
ABOVE 15 BUT BELOW 18

WITHOUT DISCERNMENT – child is exempt but subject to intervention

WITH DISCERNMENT – subject to appropriate proceedings, i.e., diversion.
No exemption from civil liability.

DISCERNMENT
Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong.

It may be shown by:

• Manner of committing a crime
• Conduct of offender
 • Appearance of the minor
• Attitude
• Comportment
• Behaviour, before, during and after the trial.

DETERMINATION OF AGE
• Birth certificate
• Baptismal act
• Other pertinent document
In the absence of the documents mentioned:
• Testimony of the child or other persons
• Physical appearance
• Other relevant evidence
*CICL enjoys the presumption of minority. (Sec. 7)

IMPOSABLE PENALTY
Not more than 6 years
• Mediation, family conferencing and conciliation if appropriate (where there is a private offended party).
• In victimless crimes, diversion or rehabilitation
More than 6 years
Diversion by the court

KINDS OF DIVERSION, Sec. 31, Barangay Level.

• Restitution
• Reparation
• Indemnification
• Written / oral apology
 • Care, guidance and supervision orders
• Counselling
• Trainings, seminars and lectures
*Anger management
*Problem solving
*Values formation
*Other skills to aid the child
• Participation in community based programs
• Participation in education, vocation and life skillsprograms

KINDS OF DIVERSON, Law Enforcement Level.

• All the programs at the barangay level
• Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds

KINDS OF DIVERSION, Court

• Court
• All programs at barangay and law enforcement
• Written / oral reprimand
• Fine
• Payment of the cost of proceedings
• Institutional care and custody

Sec. 58. Offenses not applicable to children.

Vagrancy and Prostitution (Art. 202, RPC);

Mendicancy (PD 1563);
Sniffing of Rugby (PD 1619)
Shall undergo appropriate counseling and treatment.
 PP vs. ARPON

ARPON
• Decision appealed from – 8 counts of rape
• Supreme Court – 3 counts
-1 count – exempt, accused 13 years;
st

-2nd & 3rd – accused 17 years, discernment, Reclusion Perpetua, one degree lower than death
• Suspension of sentence no longer an option, accused 29 years
• Case remanded to trial court for compliance with Sec. 51,Agricultural camp or other facility.
4. ACCIDENT. Elements?

DEFINITION
An accident is something that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about through some act of our will,
lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences.
(PP vs. AGLIDAY)
PP vs. GENITA
“he must show with clear and convincing proofs that: 1.) he was performing a lawful act with due care, 2) the injury caused was
by mere accident, and 3) he had no fault or intention of causing the injury.”
BASIS AS AN EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES? (PP vs.
AGLIDAY)

INTENT IS A MENTAL STATE

- It connotes the absence of criminal intent. Intent is a mental state, the existence of which shown by a person’s overt acts.
(AGLIDAY Case)

• Accused got his shotgun and shot his son. A shotgun has to be cocked first before it could be discharged.
DUAL STANDARD
Thus, in determining whether an “accident” attended the incident, courts must take into account the dual standards of lack of
intent to kill and absence of fault or negligence.
(POMOY vs. PP, GR No. 150647, September 29, 2004)

ACCIDENT INCONSISTENT WITH SELF-DEFENSE.

Self-defense is inconsistent with the exempting circumstance of accident, in which there is no intent to kill. On the other hand,
self-defense necessarily contemplates a premeditated intent to kill in order to defend oneself from imminent danger. (POMOY)
4. COMPULSION OF AN IRRESISTIBLE FORCE ELEMENTS:
• Compulsion is by physical force;
• The physical force is irresistible;
• The physical force must come from a third person.

“The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal
combat.” (PP vs. LORENO, GR No. L-54414, July 9, 1984)
PP vs. LORENO
“A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of
equal or greater injury is exempt from criminal liability because he does not act with freedom. The force must be irresistible to
reduce him to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his will… A threat of future injury is not enough.
The compulsion must be such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal
combat.”

PP vs. SALDANA

IRRESSISTIBLE FORCE vs. UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause
INSUPERABLE CAUSE
• Distance and available means of transportation (VICENTILLO)
• Severe dizziness and extreme debility (BANDIAN)

ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
Instances where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed.
ABSOLUTORY CAUSE IN THE RPC:
Art. 6 (Spontaneous desistance), Art. 20 (accessories who are exempt), Art. 124 (violent insanity), Art. 247 (death under
exceptional circumstances), Art. 280, par. 3 (exceptions to trespass to dwelling), Art. 332 (exempt from theft, swindling and
malicious mischief), Art. 334, par. 4 (marriage of the offender and the offended party in Seduction, Abduction,
Rape, Acts of Lasciviousness; SARA)

INSTIGATION IS AN ABSOLUTORY CAUSE.

• “Human nature is frail enough at best, and requires no encouragement in wrongdoing. If we cannot assist another,
and prevent him from committing crime, we should at least abstain from any active efforts in the way of leading him into
temptation.” (SAUNDERS vs. PP, Mich. 218, 222) (PP vs. VALENCIA, GR No. 143032, October 14, 2002)

• “…instigation or inducement, wherein the police or its agent lures the accused into committing the offense in order
to prosecute him.”

• “Instigation is deemed contrary to public policy and considered an absolutory cause.”

DEGREE OF INDUCEMENT IN INSTIGATION

• In instigation, the crime would not have been committed if it were not for the inducements of the instigator.
• Such inducement must be of such a nature that the instigator himself becomes a co-principal.

APPLICABLE ONLY TO PUBLIC OFICERS AND THEIR AGENTS

In instigation, it is necessary that the instigator is a public officer or one who is performing public functions.
If the instigator is a private individual, both the accused and instigator are criminally liable.
ENTRAPMENT vs. INSTIGATION
Entrapment is sanctioned by the law as a legitimate method of apprehending criminals. Its purpose is to trap and capture
lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. Instigation, on the other hand, involves the inducement of the would-be
accused into the commission of the offense. (PP vs.
LEGASPI, GR No. 173485, November 23, 2011)

ENTRAPMENT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTORY CAUSE

In Entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping or capturing the lawbreaker in the execution of his
criminal plan. The means of committing the crime originates from the mind of the criminal.

BUY-BUST OPERATION
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid means of arresting violators
of the Dangerous Drugs Law. It is commonly employed by police officers as an effective way of apprehending law offenders
in the act of committing a crime.
In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding
him to commit the offense. (VALENCIA)

“The prosecution has to prove all the material elements of the alleged sale of shabu and the resulting buy-bust operation.
Where the testimony of the informer is indispensable, it should be disclosed.” (PP vs. ONG, GR No. 137348, June 21,
2004)
INSTIGATION vs. ENTRAPMENT
INSTIGATION
• Instigator induces accused into commission of crime
• The accused must be acquitted
• It is the law enforcer who conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused.

ENTRAPMENT
• Ways and means are resorted to trap and capture lawbreaker in the execution of the offense.
 • Is not a bar to prosecution
• The means originate from the mind of the criminal.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
• Circumstances that reduce the penalty but do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability.
• Mitigating circumstances whether privileged or ordinary only serve to reduce the penalty but does not change the
nature of the crime.
• Does not change the nature of the crime; the crime remains as it was; (CAGOGO & URBANO)
KINDS OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
Two Kinds:
PRIVILEGED MITIGATING (Art. 68 minority, Art. 69, act not wholly excusable, Art. 64 No. 5, two ordinary no aggravating)
ORDINARY / GENERIC (Art. 13, RPC)

ORDINARY
• May be offset by aggravating circumstances
• Effect is penalty is applicable in its minimum period

PRIVILEGED
• Cannot be offset by aggravating circumstances
• Effect is penalty is lowered by one or two degrees
• All requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal liability are not attendant.
• Not all the requisites are required.
• The requisites attendant must not be a majority, otherwise it becomes a privileged mitigating circumstance (Art.
69)
PERFORMANCE OF DUTY
Since there are only 2 requisites, the presence of one is considered a privileged mitigating circumstance. * OANIS
CASE
 OVER 70 YEARS OF AGE
A generic or ordinary mitigating circumstance.
RA 9346 – prohibits the imposition of the death penalty.

3.NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG

“...notorious disproportion between the evil produced and
the means employed to execute it.” (US vs. REYES, GR
No. 12635, September 25, 1917)
INTENT IS A STATE OF MIND
“the intention of the agent, as an internal act and of his own conscience, cannot be revealed in any other manner than
by the external and overt acts which may accompany theat tintetion, theo nlyt actsthat can be appreciated by the judicial
mind.”

DEDUCING INTENT
“The intention of the culprit must be deduced, as a rule from the nature and extent of the tangible evil produces, as this is
almost always the palpable manifestation of his will, except when the proof and other circumstances or antecedent events
may be a sufficient ground to cause the belief that the material act has transcended…” (REYES)

EXTERNAL ACTS MAY SHOW INTENT

• The weapon used
• Nature of injury inflicted / where blow was directed
• Attitude of mind / manner of commission

PP vs. CALLET
“The lack of “intent” to commit a wrong so grave is an internal state. It is weighed based on the weapons used, the part of the
body injured the injury inflicted and the manner it is inflicted.”

PP vs. GONZALEZ
 • “This mitigating circumstance is obtaining when there is a notable disparity between the means employed by the
accused to commit a wrong and the resulting crime committed.”
• “The appellants’ use of a gun, although not deliberately sought nor employed in the shooting, should have
reasonably placed the appellant on guard of the possible consequences of his act.”

NOT CONSISTENT WITH TREACHERY

• The trial court gave all of the accused the benefit of the mitigating circumstance that the offenders had no intention
to commit so grave a wrong. The estimation of this circumstance was proper, and its allowance was not inconsistent with
the finding that the crime was murder. (PP vs. ENRIQUEZ, GR No. 37408, October 10, 1933, see also
Cagoco)
- Intent to kill is conclusively presumed

4. SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
Provocation must be sufficient and immediately preceding the act.

PROVOCATION MUST BE SUFFICIENT

The provocation, to constitute a mitigating circumstance, must, in the language of the law, be “sufficient”, that is, adequate
to excite the person to commit the wrong and must accordingly be proportionate to its gravity. (PP vs.
NABORA, GR No. 48101, November 22, 1941)

SUFFFICIENT PROVOCATION
Depends on:
• The act constituting the provocation
• Social standing of the person provoked
• Place and time of provocation
SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
Forcing one’s way into a line despite being told not to by a foreman. (CARRERO)
Kicking and abusing the accused for not preparing the evening meal. (FIRMO)
Asking for pardon from her husband after the latter saw a
man jump from their wisdom. (MARQUEZ)

“…immediately preceded the act.”

There should be no interval of time between the provocation made by the offended party and the commission of the crime by
the accused.

PP vs. MACASO
“…I have no respect for this salamagan…”
“…ignorant of traffic rules…”
“…stupid…”
“What do you want?”

5. IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE. The grave offense is done to:

• One committing the offense
• Spouse
• Ascendants
• Descendants
• Legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister
• Relatives by affinity within the same degrees
The person commits a crime and he is still liable but there is a reduction of the penalty because of an immediate vindication
of a grave offense.

“IMMEDIATE” = Proximate
Although this offense, which engenders perturbation of mind, was not so immediate, this court is of the opinion that the
influence thereof, by reason of its gravity and the circumstances under which it was inflicted, lasted until the moment the
crime was committed. (PP vs. PARANA, GR No.
45373, March 31, 1937)

TIME TO RESIGN COMPOSURE OR EQUANIMITY.

“…still this mitigating circumstance cannot be considered where sufficient time elapsed for the accused to regain his
composure.”
“Without question, sufficient time had passed for appellants’ emotions to cool and for them to recover their equanimity.”
(PP vs. VENTURA)

GRAVE OFFENSE NOT GRAVE FELONY.

The gravity of the offense depends on:
• Social standing of the person subject of the grave offense
• Place
• Time when insult was made

GRAVE OFFENSE
“I will make a roast pig out of you” (AMPAR)
“You live at the expense of your wife” (ROSEL)
“You are a Japanese spy” (LUNA)

6.PASSION / OBFUSCATION
- The accused must have acted on an impulse so powerful that it naturally induced passion or obfuscation.
This is mitigating because a particular conduct of another person creates an impulse within the offender which impulse is very
strong that results in an extreme emotion.

PASSION / OBFUSCATION; Requisites:

(1)That there be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind;
(2)That said act which produces the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable
length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity. (PP vs. GRAVINO,
GR Nos. L-31327-29, May 16, 1983)
 PRIOR UNJUST OR IMPROPER CONDUCT
This circumstance “should not be taken into consideration as an extenuating circumstance unless it appears that it was
provoked by prior unjust or improper acts.” (US vs.
TAYLOR)

(PP vs. NOYNAY)

In order to be entitled to this mitigating circumstance, it must appear that the obfuscation of the accused arose from lawful
sentiments. The fact that an offense was committed in an uncontrollable burst of passion should not be taken into
consideration as an extenuating circumstance unless it appears that it was provoked by prior unjust or improper acts.”

(PP vs. CALISO)

“…the accused, in poisoning the child, was actuated more by a spirit of lawlessness and revenge than by any sudden
impulse of natural and uncontrollable fury and because such sudden burst of passion was not provoked by prior unjust or
improper acts.”
(US vs. SARIKALA, GR No. L-12988, January 24, 1918) “The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot
be considered when a long period of time has intervened between the impulse which produces it and the criminal act.”

MUST ARISE FROM LAWFUL SENTIMENTS “…the only causes which mitigate the criminal responsibility for the loss of
self-control are such as will originate from legitimate feelings, not those which arise from vicious, unworthy, and immoral
passions.” (US vs.
HICKS, GR No. 4971, September 23, 1909)

- The woman was within her rights to make a refusal.

HICKS AND DELA CRUZ DISTINGUISHED
In HICKS, the cause of the alleged “passion and obfuscation”… the refusal of the woman to continue to live in illicit relations
with him, which she had a perfect right to do;
In the present case however, the impulse upon which defendant acted and which naturally “produced passion and obfuscation”
was not that the woman declined to have illicit relations with him, but the sudden revelation that she was untrue to him, and his
discovery of her in flagrante in the arms of another.” (US vs.
DELA CRUZ, GR No. 7094, March 29, 1912)

SUMMARY OF RULES
The act producing the condition of mind/impulse must be unlawful, improper and unjust while the sentiment of the accused from
which the passion or obfuscation originate from which it must be lawful.

A SINGLE FACT CANNOT BE MADE THE BASIS OF DIFFERENT MODIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

“Well-settled is the rule that if these two circumstances are based on the same facts, they should be treated together as one
mitigating circumstance. From the facts established in this case, it is clear that both circumstances arose from the same set of
facts aforementioned. Hence, they should not be treated as two separate mitigating circumstances.” (ROMERA vs. PP, GR No.
151978, July 14, 2004)

7. VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND CONFESSION

For surrender to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance it must be spontaneous and unconditional because he
acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities from the trouble and expenses in his search and capture.
REQUISITES:
• Offender has not been actually arrested
• The offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agent
• The surrender is voluntary
PP vs. CONCILLADO
“For the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the surrender must be spontaneous and in a
manner that shows that the accused made an unconditional surrender to the authorities, either based on recognition of
guilt or from the desire to save the authorities from the trouble and expenses that would be involved in the accused’s
search and capture.”
PP vs. OBLIGADO
“Inasmuch as he was intercepted by the arresting officers there, appellant had no means of evading arrest. His surrender
therefore was neither voluntary nor spontaneous.” WARRANT OF ARREST; ISSUANCE DIFFERENT FROM SERVICE
“For while it is true that the warrant for his arrest was dated 7 March 1967 and the police authorities were able to take custody
of the accused only on 31 March 1967, there is nothing on record to show that the warrant had actually been served on him,
or that it had been returned unserved for
failure of the server to locate said accused.”
(PP vs. BRANA, GR No. L-29210, October 31, 1969)
-So why would this now be a hindrance to the availment of the mitigating circumstance? Because the accused is hiding.
Kibaw na cya nga naa nai gi-serve nga warrant. He can no longer avail of this mitigating circumstance. BUT WHAT IF
WALA SIYA KIBAW NGA NAA NA DIAY WARRANT
NGA GI-ISSUE AGAINST NIYA? What if diha raka kibaw ig abot sa police sa imong tungod nga padung ka tagaan ug
warrant? SURRENDER DAYON SA POLICE. UNHI.
–Carillo

“…surrendered himself…”
“Suffice it to say that we are not prepared to consider surrender of weapons as analogous to voluntary surrender to a person
in authority or his agents.” (PP vs. VERGES, GR
No. L-36882-84, July 24, 1981)

“Although Ildefonso Palo handed the gun to the barrio lieutenant upon the latter’s demand, there is no evidence that he
willingly delivered himself to the authorities.” (PP vs.
PALO, GR Nos. L-9593-94, July 31, 1957)
PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR HIS AGENTS
Person in authority is one directly vested with jurisdiction or the power and authority to govern and execute the laws, e.g.,
mayors, barrio captain or barangay chairman.
 AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY
Thus, there can be no explanation why he surrendered only on April 16, 1998 or 14 days after the commission of the crime.
(PP vs. AGACER)

PURPOSE IN SURRENDERING
“Although both accused reported to the police authorities the following day after the commission of the crime, it was not for
the purpose of submitting themselves unconditionally.”

PLEA OF GUILTY
Requisites:
• Spontaneous
• In open court before a court of competent jurisdiction
• Before the presentation of evidence for the prosecution

AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY

PP vs. CRISOSTOMO
PP vs. ORTIZ

8. DEAF, DUMB, BLIND OR OTHER PHYSICAL DEFECT

• The physical defect must restrict the offender’s means of action, defense, or communication with fellow beings.
• The restriction must, however, relate to the mode of committing the crime.
• There is diminution of the element of voluntariness (freedom).
PP vs. FRANCISCO PP vs. DEOPANTE

9.ILLNESS
The illness must diminish the exercise of will power without depriving him of consciousness of his acts.

When the offender is deprived of consciousness it may be an exempting circumstance. (insanity).

 SIMPLE AND FEEBLEMINDED.
On the other hand, the fact that the accused is feebleminded warrants the finding in his favour of the mitigating
circumstance provided for in either paragraph 8 or paragraph 9 of Article 13 of the RPC, namely, that the accused is
“suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense or communication with his fellow beings,”
or such illness “as would diminish the exercise of his will power.” (PP vs. FORMIGONES)

10.ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
• Owner of animal that is taken for ransom (vindication)
• Esprit de corps (passion or obfuscation)
• Voluntary restitution of stolen property (voluntary surrender)
- Extreme poverty and necessity (incomplete state of necessity)
• Testifying for the prosecution (plea of guilty)

CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE NOT ANALOGOUS.

• Killing the wrong man
• Reputation of being a rascal and a bully
• Lack of irreparable damage
• Not resisting arrest
• Running amuck
SARIGUMBA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
“In malversation of public funds, payment, indemnification, or reimbursement of funds misappropriated, after the commission
of the crime, does not extinguish the criminal liability of the accused…”

BEING A BATTERED HUSBAND?

“In this case it was established that petitioner and his wife had a violent altercation and that petitioner was mauled by his
neighbors after he kicked some of them for laughing at him. These events and circumstances prior to the killing of Alfredo
Gonzales could have caused unusual outbursts of passion and emotion on petitioner’s part. These resulted in the tragic
stabbing of the victim thus entitling petitioner to the mitigating circumstance analogous to passion and obfuscation.”
(DANAFRATA vs. PP, GR No. 143010,
 September 30, 2003)

ART. 14. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Circumstances that, if attendant, serve to increase the penalty without exceeding the maximum of the penalty provided by law.
The penalty of theft is dependable upon the value of the thing stolen. The lesser the value, the lesser the penalty. The higher
the value, the higher the penalty. Maximum of theft is 20 years. Nangawat kag Princess of the Stars tag P100,000,000, chop2x,
baligya nimo ky gipatingbang nimo. TEMPORAL ra gyud ka kutob no matter how many the aggravating circumstances are
present.

KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

GENERIC – is generally applicable to all kinds of crime, e.g., dwelling, nighttime or recidivism.
SPECIFIC – applicable to particular crimes, e.g., Ignominy in crimes against chastity and Treachery in crimes against persons.
QUALIFYING – changes the nature of the crime, e.g., treachery qualifies killing to Murder.
INHERENT – must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime. They cannot be taken into account for the purpose of
increasing the penalty. (ART. 62, par. 2)

GENERIC - increases penalty to be imposed without exceeding the maximum

Can be offset by a mitigating circumstance
QUALIFYING
Places the offender in no other situation as to deserve a…

RULE 110, SECTION 8, REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Section 8. Designation of the offense – The complaint of information shall state the designation of the offense five by the
statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If
there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
If it is not included in the information, no matter how sufficient you prove it during trial, the court will downgrade the conviction.
RULE 110, SECTION 9, REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
PP vs. ELONA
“In accordance with Sections 8 and 9, supra, we have ruled that qualifying and aggravating circumstances, although proved
during the trial, cannot be appreciated when not alleged in the information. Although the crimes in the cases at bar were
committed in…
ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE OFFENDER OF HIS PUBLIC POSITION
What is important is that the offender is a public officer and he takes advantage of his public position to commit the crime.

…using the “influence, prestige or ascendancy which his office gives him the means by which he realizes his
purpose.” (US vs. RODRIGUEZ, 19 Phil. 150)

PP vs. VILLAMOR

US vs. TORRIDA
“The fact that the appellant was councilman at the time placed him a position to commit these crimes. If he had not been
councilman he could not have induced the injured parties to pay these alleged fines. It was on account of his being
councilman that the parties believed that he had the right to collect fines and it was for this reason that they made the
payments.”

PABLO vs. PP
“the mere fact that the 3 accused were all police officers at the time of the robbery placed them in a position to perpetrate
the offense. If they were not police officers they could not have terrified the Montecillos into boarding …

PP vs. MAGAYAC
“That accused-appellant was a member of the dreaded CAFGU and used his government issued M-14 rifle to kill Jimmy
does not necessarily prove that he took advantage of his public position to commit the crime.”

PP vs. FALLORINA (MAO NI ANG PINAKA-RECENT. AYAW

ANG PP vs. GAPASIN)
There is no dispute that the appellant is a policeman and that he used his service firearm, the .45 caliber pistol, in shooting
the victim. However, there is no evidence on record that the appellant took advantage of his position as a policeman
when he shot the victim. The shooting occurred only when the appellant saw the victim on the rooftop playing with his kite.
The trial court erred in appreciating abuse of public position against the appellant.

PP vs. HERRERA
In other words, if the accused could have perpetrated the crime even without occupying his position, there is no abuse of
public position. The mere fact that accusedappellant is a policeman and used his government issued .39 caliber revolver to
kill Ganan is not sufficient to establish that he misused his public position in the commission of the crime.
BUT IN…
“appellant, a member of the Philippine Constabulary, committed the crime with an armalite which was issued to him when
he received the mission order.”

IN CONTEMPT OF OR WITH INSULT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES REQUISITES:

• A public authority is engaged in the exercise of functions
• The public authority is not the person against whom the
crime is committed
• The offender knows him to be a public authority
• The presence of the public authority does not prevent
the commission of the crime by the offender

PUBLIC AUTHORITY
Public authority should be construed as a person in authority*, i.e., one who is vested with jurisdiction, that is, one who
has the power to govern and execute the laws. An agent of a person in authority is not included in this circumstance.

*ART. 152, RPC

PP vs. GUTIERREZ
DISREGARD OF RANK, AGE, SEX OR DWELLING OF OFFENDED PARTY.
Age may refer to victim’s advanced age or very young age. For this circumstance to be appreciated, there must be
evidence that the accused deliberately intended to insult the rank, age or sex of the offended party.

DELIBERATE INTENT PP vs. MANGSANT

PP vs. DELACRUZ

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS OR HONOR

PP vs. HERNANDEZ
DWELLING OF OFFENDED PARTY
Dwelling means a building or structure exclusively used for rest and comfort. It may refer to the entire structure or a
portion thereof.

PRIVACY AND SANCTITY OF HOME

“It is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy that the law accords to the human
abode. He who goes to another’s house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him
elsewhere.” (PP vs. EVANGELIO, GR No. 181902,
August 31, 2011)

PP vs. ALCALA
“as to whether the crime must be held to have been committed in the dwelling of the offended party, we take it that although
the accused were found with the deceased at the foot of the staircase of the house, that place must be regarded as an
integral part of the dwelling of that family. The porch of a house, not common to different neighbors, is a part of the
dwelling.”

Hotel room? If I stay in Marco Polo? Is it a dwelling? Sir Carillo is of the opinion that: “Again, I do not know”.
SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION BY OWNER OF THE DWELLING
 When there is sufficient provocation by the owner of the dwelling, this circumstance cannot be appreciated.

“There must be a close relation between provocation and commission of crime in the dwelling of the person from
whom the provocation came.”

Provocation here negates dwelling. You cannot use your right to be safe in your house to injure others by performing
unlawful / improper acts and hiding in the sanctity of one’s abode.

US vs. LICARTE
In the case at bar the offended party, by calling Filomena vile names, started the trouble. This vile language was not directed at
the accused, but to her daughter. This was, however, a sufficient provocation to cause the accused to demand an explanation
why her daughter was so grossly insulted. So under these facts, it was error to hold that the aggravating circumstance of
morada existed.
PP vs. DEQUINA
The provocation was not given immediately prior to the commission of the crime and had no particular relation to the house of
the deceased. If the defendant had entered the house of the deceased and surprise the deceased and the wife of the defendant
in the act of adultery, the aggravating circumstance of morada would not exist.

WHEN PROVOCATION NEGATES DWELLING.

• Provocation must be immediately prior to the commission of the crime
• There must be a close relation between the provocation and the crime committed.

PP vs. AGONCILLO
Dwelling is considered as an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to the
human abode. However, in the present case, Rosalyn was not raped therein. Although she was abducted therefrom,
accused-appellant was not charged with forcible abduction with rape but only with rape. Considering that she was not
raped in her home, dwelling cannot be appreciated.

ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR OBVIOUS

 UNGRATEFULNESS.

PP vs. CALISO
“…in the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of confidence was present since the
appellant was the domestic servant of the family and was sometimes the deceased child’s amah.”

• COMPARE Caliso with PP vs. ARTHUR CRUMB,

C.A., 46 O.G. 6163

PALACE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, IN HIS PRESENCE, PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ARE ENGAGED IN THE
DISCHARGE OF DUTIES OR
IN A PALACE DEDICATED TO PUBLIC WORSHIP.

Palace of the Chief Executive and place dedicated to public worship – official or religious function need not be held.

Where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties – there must be some performance of public
functions.

How about cemetery? Is it not a place of public worship? No.

INTENT TO COMMIT THE CRIME

There must be evidence that the accused had the intention to commit a crime when he entered the place.

NIGHTTIME, UNINHABITED PLACE, BY BAND.

“…it has been held that if the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited place or band concur in the commission of
the crime, all will constitute one aggravating circumstance only as a general rule although they can be considered
separately if their elements are distinctly perceived and can subsist independently, revealing a greater degree of
perversity.” (PP vs. LIBRANDO, GR No. 132251,
July 6, 2000)

PP vs. SILVA
“…it becomes aggravating only when: (1) it is especially sought by the offender; or (2) it is taken advantage of by him; or (3) it
facilitates the commission of the crime by ensuring the offender’s immunity from capture.

“The fact that they brought with them a flashlight clearly shows that they intended to commit the crime in darkness.”

DARKNESS OR OBSCURITY
“The essence of this aggravating circumstance is the obscuridad afforded by, and not merely the chronological onset of,
nighttime. Although the offense was committed at night, nocturnity does not become a modifying….” (PP vs.
CARINO)

UNINHABITED PLACE
That there was a reasonable possibility for the victim to receive some help in the place of the commission of the crime.
PP vs. RUBIA
“The aggravating circumstance of the crime having been committed in an uninhabited place must be considered, the incident
having taken place at sea where it was difficult for the offended party to receive help, while the assailants could easily have
escaped punishment.”
PP vs. LUMANDONG
Likewise, the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place under Article 14(6) was correctly appreciated against the
appellant…”

BAND
 This circumstance is present when more than three armed men acted together in the commission of the offense. In other
words the four armed men must directly participate in the execution of the act constituting the crime.

PP vs. MAGDAMIT
An offense is committed en cuadrilla when more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission
thereof. In the present case, there were 7 conspirators involved in the commission of the composite crime.

PP vs. LOZANO
This Code does not define or require any particular arms or weapons; any weapon which by reason of its intrinsic nature or
the purpose for which it was made or used by the accused, is capable of inflicting serious or fatal injuries upon the victim of
the crime may be considered as arms for purposes of the law on cuadrilla.

GUNS AND KNIVES.

“The trial court and the CA correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of the commission of a crime by band…”
ON THE OCCASION OF A CONFLAGRATION, SHIPWRECK, EARTHQUAKE, EPIDEMIC OR OTHER CALAMITY OR
MISFORTUNE.
- The rule here is that the offender must take advantage of the calamity or misfortune in the commission of the crime.

AID OF ARMED MEN OR PERSON WHO INSURE OR AFFORD IMPUNITY.

The armed men must not participate in the execution of the felony otherwise they are co-principals.

MUST BE ACCOMPLICES
Aid of armed men or persons affording impunity requires that the armed men are accomplices who take part in minor
capacity, directly or indirectly. We note that all four accused were charged as principals. The remaining suspects --- John
Does, Jane Doe and Peter Doe --- were never identified and charged. Neither was proof adduced as to the nature of their
participation. (Lozano)
RECIDIVISM
A recidivist is one who, at the time of the trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another
crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code.

RECIDIVISM, Requisites:
• That the offense is on trial for an offense
• That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
• That both the first and second offense are embraced in the same title of the RPC
• That the offender is convicted of the second offense

PP vs. RAPISORA
Article 14(9) of the RPC defines a recidivist as “one who, at the time of his trial for one crime shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.” To prove recidivism, it is necessary to
allege the same in the information and to attach thereto certified copies of the sentence rendered against the accused.

REITERACION / HABITUALITY.
Requisites:
1. The accused is on trial
2. He previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty, or for two or
more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty than that for the new offense
3. The accused is convicted for the new offense

RECIDIVISM
• Offender is convicted by final judgment
• The offenses are included in the same title of the RPC
• The offenses are embraced in the same title of the RPC, penalty is immaterial.
HABITUALITY
• Offender serves out his sentence in the previous conviction
• The previous and subsequent offense need not be embraced in the same title of the RPC

IN CONSIDERATION OF A PRICE, REWARD OR PROMISE.

The price, reward or promise must be the primary consideration of the offender in committing the crime.

INCLUDES THE PERSON WHO GIVES THE REWARD.

In PP vs. TALLEDO, GR NO. L-1778, February 23, 1950, this circumstance was not considered primarily because there was
no conclusive evidence and the circumstance was not alleged in the information.

PP vs. ALINCASTRE
“The Talledo case is not authority on this question.”

GREATER MORAL DEPRAVITY

In fact, under certain conditions such as those obtaining in the case at bar the circumstance under consideration may evince
even greater moral depravity in the offeror than in the acceptor. (Alincastre)

PP vs. CANETE

BY MEANS OF INUNDIATION, FIRE, POISON,

EXPLOSION, STRANDING OF VESSEL OR INTENTIONAL DAMAGE THERETO, DERAILMENT OF LOCOMOTIVE,
OR ANY OTHER ARTIFICE INVOLVING GREAT WASTE OR RUIN.
Any of the circumstances in this paragraph must be used by the offender to accomplish the crime, hence the phrase “by
means of…”

PP vs. COMADRE
When the killing is perpetrated with treachery and by means of explosives, the latter shall be considered as a qualifying
circumstance. Not only does jurisprudence support this view but also, since the use of explosives is the principal mode of attack,
reason dictates that this attendant circumstance should qualify the offense instead of treachery which will then be relegated
merely as a generic aggravating circumstance.”

EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
Requisites:
• The time when the offender was determined to commit the crime
• An act manifestly indicating the culprit’s determination to commit the crime
• A sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution

*Despite the opportunity to contemplate the intended crime, the culprit still persists in continuing the offense. He does
not want to go back to the path of righteousness

(PP vs. TOBECHUKWU, GR No. 142044, November 23, 2011)

“The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act is preceded by cool thought and reflection
upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent within a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.”

(US vs. THE MORO MANALINDE, GR No. 5292,

August 28, 1909)
“As to the other circumstance it is also unquestionable that the accused, upon accepting the order and undertaking the
journey in order to comply therewith, deliberately considered and carefully and thoughtfully meditated over the nature and
the consequences of the acts which, under orders received from the said datto, he was about to carry out, and to that end
provided himself with weapon, concealing it by wrapping it up, and started on a journey of a day and a night for the sole
purpose of taking the life of two unfortunate persons…”

(PP vs. DUAVIS, GR No. 190861, December 7, 2011) To the mind of the court, the lapse of time between the decision and
the execution is not sufficient to allow appellant to fully reflect upon the consequences of his act and to effectively and
 efficiently prepare and plan his actions prior to the commission of the crime. Although it may be argued that there was some
kind of premeditation on the part of appellant Duavis, it was not proved to be evident.

*Altercation – 3:00PM ; Assault – 5:00PM

PP vs. CONCILLADO
The evidence must show that the decision to kill prior to the moment of its execution was the result of meditation,
calculation, reflection or persistent attempts. Absent such evidence, mere presumption and inferences are insufficient.

PP vs. HILARIO
Evident premeditation, however, may not properly be taken into account when the person whom the defendant proposed to
kill was different from the one who became his victim. When the person decided to kill a different person and premeditated
on the killing of the latter, but when he carried out his plan he actually killed another person, it cannot properly be said that
he premeditated on the killing of the actual victim.

DIFFERENTIATED FROM MANALINDE

“The fact that the arrangement between the instigator and the tool considered the killing of unknown persons, the first
encountered, does not bar the consideration of the circumstance of premeditation…”
CRAFT, FRAUD OR DISGUISE
- Craft involves intellectual trickery and cunning

DISGUISE
(PP vs. REYES, GR No. 118649, March 9, 1998)
“It is also worth mentioning that while appellant reportedly had a sort of a mask and was using sunglasses, these clumsy
accouterments could not constitute the aggravating circumstance of disguise. Legally, disfraz contemplates a superficial but
somewhat effective dissembling to avoid identification.”

(PP vs. CABATO, GR No. L-37400, April 15, 1988)

“Likewise, the Court considers disguise as another aggravating circumstance. The accused, together with two others, wore
masks to cover their faces. There could have been no other purpose for this but to conceal their identities particularly for
Cabato who was very much known to the offended parties. The fact that the mask subsequently fell down thus paving the way
for Cabato’s identification will not render this aggravating circumstance inapplicable.”

(PP vs. CUNANAN, GR No. L-30103, January 20, 1977)

• The malefactors resorted to a disguise. That circumstance did not facilitate the consummation of the killing. Nor was
it taken advantage of by the malefactors in the course of the assault.
• They announced their presence at the scene of the crime with shouts and gunshots. That mode of attack
counteracted whatever deception might have arisen from their disguise.
DISGUISE
• Purpose of the offender is to conceal his identity
• To facilitate the commission of the crime
• Offender takes advantage of the disguise

ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH OR MEANS BE EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE DEFENSE

“…must show that the accused were physically stronger than the victim, and that they abused such superiority…” (PP vs.
DREW)
PP vs. SGT. PADILLA
“Abuse of superior strength is present not only when the offenders enjoy numerical superiority, or there is a notorious inequality
of forces between the victim and the aggressor, but also when the offender uses a powerful weapon which is out of proportion
to the defense available to the offended party.”
PP vs. AMODIA
“To appreciate the attendant circumstance of abuse of superior strength, what should be considered is whether the aggressors
took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense. Mere superiority in number is not enough to
constitute superior strength. There must be clear proof that the assailants purposely used excessive force out of proportion to
the defense available to the person attacked.”
PP vs. VENTURA
“On the contrary, this Court in a very long line of cases has consistently held that an attack made by a man with a deadly
weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes the circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his sex and
the weapon used in the act afforded him, and from which the woman was unable to defend herself.”

MEANS EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN DEFENSE.

The means must not be of such a nature that the victim could not put up any sort of defense otherwise that would be a case of
treachery.

PP vs. DUCUSIN
The aggravating circumstance defined in Article 10, No. 9, of the Penal Code, that is, the employment of means to weaken the
defense, consisting in this case, in having made the deceased intoxicated, must be taken into account.
TREACHERY
“There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means methods, or forms in the
execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which
the offended party / victim might make.” (PP vs. GIDOC,
GR No. 185162, April 24, 2009)

ESSENCE OF TREACHERY
The essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed…

PP vs. YANSON
“Verily, appellant employed means which insured the killing of Magan and such means assured him from the risk of Magan’s
defense had he made any. It must also be noted that Magan was stabbed four times…”

PP vs. REGALADO
“It is not only the central fact of a killing that must be shown beyond reasonable doubt every qualifying or aggravating
circumstance…” (PP vs. ABDULAH)

ELEMENTS OF TREACHERY PP vs. VELASCO

FINALS
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE
The general rule is that an offender is criminally liable for his own actions
When there is only on felon, he alone is criminally liable
In case of multiple offenders, criminal liability depends on the degree and nature of participation in the criminal act.
ART 16. Who are criminally liable.
Grave and Less Grave Felonies:
Principals;
Accomplices; Accessories Light Felonies: Principals;
Accomplices.
Only natural persons.
• RPC requires that a person act with malice or with negligence
• Juridical persons cannot be deprived of liberty
• Mots penalties can be executed by natural persons.

ART 17. Principals

• Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
• Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
• Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been
accomplished
Principal by direct participation Requisites:
• That they participate in the criminal resolution;
 • They carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which directly tended to the same end.
Conspiracy
Participating in the criminal resolution is conspiracy.
Two or more persons come to an agreement and decide to commit it.
Conspiracy not as a felony but a manner of incurring criminal liability.
Pp VS REYES, GR No 178300, Mar 17, 2009
Conspiracy presupposes unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective among the accused. When the
accused by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and the other performing another part as to complete
the crime, with a view to the attainment of the same object, conspiracy exists.
Conspiracy may be expressed or implied
Stated otherwise, it is not essential that there be proof of the previous agreement and decision to commit the crime; it is
sufficient that the malefactors acted in concert pursuant to the same objective. (Pp vs Amodia, GR no. 173791, Apr 7, 2009)

Manner of commission of crime

Conspiracy may be deduced form the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the
accused which show a joint or common purpose and design, a concerted action and a community of interest among the
accused. (Pp vs SICAD, GR no 133833, Oct 15, 2002)
“Acting as lookouts”
One who participates in the material execution of the crime by standing guard or lending moral support to the actual
perpetrators thereof is criminally responsible to the same extent as the latter. In a conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that all
the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. (SICAD)
Indicators of conspiracy
• Spontaneous agreement
• Active cooperation by all the offenders in the perpetration of the crime
• Contributing positive acts to the realization of a common criminal intent
• Presence during the commission of the crime by a band and lending moral support thereto
• Knowing the plan and accepting the role assigned and actually performing that role
Where there is no conspiracy
Mere silence does not make one a conspirator. (Pp vs GENSOLA, Sept 30, 1969, GR no L-24491)
Mere companionship is not conspiracy. (Pp vs PADRONES,
1990 Sept 13, 1990, GR No 85823)
When there is no conspiracy, each is liable for his own acts.
Pp vs ENRIQUEZ, Oct 10, 1933, GR no 37408
“if a number of persons agree to commit, and enter upon the commission of a crime which will probably endanger human life
such as robbery, all of them are responsible for the death of a person that ensues as a consequence.”
Not the object of the conspiracy/necessary or logical consequence of the crime intended
In Umali (96 Phil 185) robbery is not included/necessary or logical consequence of sedition;
Where the conspiracy specifically targeted one and only one person, the killing of others would not affect the conspirators.
(de la cerna, Oct 30, 1967)
Some rules in conspiracy
Conspiracy alone does not result in criminal liability (Timbol) Participation in the criminal resolution must either be before or
simultaneous with the criminal act.
Applicable only in crimes committed by means of dolo. 2nd Requisite. They carried out their plan and personally took part
in its execution by acts which directly tended to the same end.
He must be at the scene of the crime personally taking part in its execution.
It is sufficient that the act performed directly tends to accomplish the intended crime.
Ex: holding down the victim in murder or rape; acting as lookout/guard.
Principal by Inducement. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it.
• Directly forcing another to commit a crime;
-using irresistible force; or
-causing uncontrollable fear
• Directly inducing another to commit a crime. -giving price or offering reward or promise; -using words of
command.
Requisites of principal by induction
• Inducement with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime
• Inducement is the determining cause of the commission of the crime
1 requisite. Intention
st
Clear intention to procure the commission of the crime In Otadora the promise of pecuniary gain (money and carabaos) and
supplying the gun to use in the commission of the crime In Alcontin, the promise of living together once the husband of the
Incuder is killed. Does not include
Thoughtless expressions; Imprudent advice:
2nd requisite. Determining cause
Must be of such a nature that without it the crime would not have been committed.
It must:
• Precede the act induced; and
• Influential
Requisites: Words of Command
• Intention to procure commission of crime
• Inducer must have ascendancy or influence
• Words must be direct, so efficacious, so powerful as to amount to physical coercion
• Uttered prior to the commission of the crime
• Material executor has no personal reason to commit the crime

Principal by Cooperation. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it
would not have been accomplished Requisites:
• Participation in criminal resolution
• Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act, w/o a/c it would not have been
accomplished
Cooperation
Cooperation- implies that there is a desire or wish in common. Another act- the act must be different from the acts of the
principal by direct participation the act must not involve the material execution of the offense.
Ex dragging a girl to place where she is to be raped; certifying a check to facilitate estafa.

Three types of Principals

Even in case of conspiracy, to be liable as a principal one must fall under any of the three concepts in Art 17.
In such case, we apply our ruling in Pp vs Ubina where we held that when a accused does not fall under any of the three
concepts defined in Art 17 of the RPC, he may only be considered guilty as an accomplice (Pp vs CARRIAGA, GR no 135029,
Sept 12, 2003)

ART 18. Accomplices

• Cooperates by previous or simultaneous acts
• Not a principal
• No conspiracy

Conspirator vs Accomplice
Conspirators and accomplices know and agree in the criminal design.
Conspirators participate in the criminal resolution, accomplices concur in the criminal design.
Requisites:
• Community of design
• Cooperation by previous or simultaneous acts
• Relation between acts of principal and accomplice
1 requisite. Community of Design
st

Community of design requires knowledge and concurrence of the criminal design

Prior to the commission of the act.
Knowledge of a crime different from that actually committed as long as it is a natural consequence of the crime intended, an
accomplice is liable.
2nd requisite: cooperation by previous or simultaneous acts. The acts of the accomplice must not be indispensable o/w he
is a principal.
The acts must not be due to conspiracy
3rd requisite:
The act of the accomplice must have a relation with the act of the principal
Liable for different crimes
A attacks B with treachery. Later C and D arrives and take part in killing B.
- Principal in murder
C and D- Accomplice in Homicide
*no conspiracy, no knowledge as to the manner A attacked B.

ART 19. Accessories.

Knowledge in the commission of the crime, not being principals or accomplices, take subsequent part in its commission by:
• Profiting or assisting the accused to profit;
• Concealing or destroying the body of the crime or its effects/instruments to prevent its discovery
• Harbouring, concealing or assisting in the escape Harbouring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the
principal.
• Public officer who abuses his public function (any crime)
• Private person (treason, parricide, murder, attempt against the life of the president, habitually guilty of some other
crime)
Accessories
To convict and accused as an accessory, the following elements must be proven: 1. Knowledge of the commission of the crime
and 2. Subsequent participation in it by any of the three abovecited modes (Pp vs WILFREDO TOLENTINO, GR no. 139179,
Apr 3, 2002)

PENALTIES
ART 22 Retroactive effect of Penal Laws
The general rule is that penal laws have prospective effect They can only be given retroactive effect if:
• It is favourable to the accused
• The accused is not a habitual criminal Prospective effect of penal laws.
Applicable to all penal laws
This rule is applicable even for those serving sentence by final judgement.
Habitual criminal is one who…
• Within a period of 10 years;
 • From the date of the last conviction or release;
• Of the crimes of serious and less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification;
• Is found guilty of any said crimes a 3rd time or oftener. (Art 62, par 5)
Jurisdiction of Courts
It is the law at the time of the institution of the action that determines the jurisdiction of courts
Jurisdiction of the courts is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information.
ART 23 Pardon by the offended party.
Pardon by the offended party does not affect the criminal action. Civil liability may be expressly waived by the offended party.
The exception under Art 344 of the RPC must be made before the institution of the criminal action.

ART 25 Penalties which may be imposed

Art 25 is a classification of penalties as to principal or accessory penalties
This is also a list of penalties that may be imposed in the RPC. *RA 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. The
penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed in lieu of death.
Disqualification and Suspension
Disqualification (whether perpetual/temporary or absolute/special) and suspension may either be principal or
accessory penalties.
Temporary disqualification if principal – 6y and 1 d – 12 yrs. If accessory it shall have the duration of the principal penalty.
ART 26 Fine – when afflictive, correctional or light penalty
Afflictive – exceeds 6,000
Correctional – does not exceed 6,000 but is not less than 200
Light – less than 200
*this classification should not be confused with Art 9, which classifies felonies.

ART 27. Duration of penalties

The amendment giving a duration to reclusion perpetua (20y and 1 d to 40 y) did not mean that it has reclassified as a divisible
penalty. It remains an indivisible penalty (Pp vs LUCAS, GR no 108172-73, Jan 9, 1995)
ART 28 Computation of penalties
If the offender is in prison, the temporary penalty –judgement of conviction becomes final
If the offender is not in prison, the penalty consisting of deprivation of liberty – the offender is placed at the disposal of the
judicial authorities.
Duration of other penalties – from the day on w/c the defendant commences to serve his sentence.

ART 29 Preventive detention

Period of preventive suspension – credited fully in the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty if the
detention prisoner agrees in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposing on convicted prisoners.
Exceptions:
Recidivists and those convicted previously 2 or 3 times of any crime, and
Those who fail to surrender voluntarily when summoned for execution of sentence.
Rules:
If the detention prisoner does not abide by the rules imposed on convicts, he will be credited in the service of his sentence with
4/5 of the period of preventive detention
If the detention prisoner has been in detention for a period equal to or more than the possible maximum imprisonment of the
offense charged to which he may be sentenced and his case is not terminated, he shall be released immediately.
In case, the possible penalty is destierro, he shall be released after 30 days of preventive imprisonment.

ART 36 Pardon
Pardon remits the principal penalty but not the accessory penalty, unless the pardon expressly provides otherwise. Exception:
when pardon is granted after the principal penalty has been fully executed
ART 38 Pecuniary liabilities- order of payment
• Reparation of damage caused
• Indemnification of consequential dmages
• Fine
• Cost of proceedings
*this article is applicable only when the property of the convict is not sufficient to pay all pecuniary liabilities.
ART 39 Subsidiary penalty
Under the PRC, subsidiary imprisonment is additional penalty consisting of imprisonment for a convict who has no property to
pay the fine at a rate of one day for each 8 pesos. Rules under the RPC if prison correccional or arresto and fine – s.i shall not
exceed 1/3 of the term of sentence and in no case exceed 1 year. If penalty is only a fine – s.i. shall not exceed 6 months if
prosecuted for garve or less garve; and not exceed 15 days if for a light felony.
If penalty imposed is higher than prison correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment.
Rules in special laws
If court imposed a fine – shall not exceed 6 months (one day for every P2.5)
If both imprisonment and fine – shall not exceed 1/3 term of imprisonment and no case exceed 1 year.
In case imprisonment for more than 6 years and fine – no s.i.
ART 45 Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and instruments and tools in the commission of the
crime
“Ever penalty” presupposes that this is an accessory penalty
The confiscation or forfeiture is in favour of the government If a third person owns the property and is not liable for the offense,
the property cannot be confiscated or forfeited in favour of the govt
If the property is not subject of lawful commerce, it shall be destroyed regardless of whether it belongs to the accused or a third
person.
Rules
There must be a criminal case o/w no penalty can be imposed If the property belongs to a person not included in the charge,
the court cannot order the confiscation/forfeiture of the property If the property was not submitted to the court in evidence, said
property cannot be confiscated PDEA v. Brodett
-
“On its part, PDEA regards the decision of the CA to be not in accord with applicable laws and the primordial intent of the
framers of R.A. No. 9165, 32 and contends that the car should not be released from the custody of the law because it had
been seized from accused Brodett during a legitimate anti-illegal operation. It argues that the Motion to Return Non-Drug
Evidence did not intimate or allege that the car had belonged to a third person; and that even if the car had belonged to Ms.
Brodett, a
 third person, her ownership did not ipso facto authorize its release, because she was under the obligation to prove to the RTC
that she had no knowledge of the commission of the crime. It
insists that the car is a property in custodia legis and may not be released during the pendency of the trial.
We agree with PDEA and the Office of the City Prosecutor.
We note that the RTC granted accused Brodett's Motion to Return Non-Drug Evidence on November 4, 2009 when the
criminal proceedings were still going on, and the trial was yet to be completed. Ordering the release of the car at that point of
the proceedings was premature, considering that the third paragraph of Section
20,supra, expressly forbids the DISPOSITION,
ALIENATION or TRANSFER of
any property, or income derived therefrom, that has been confiscated from the accused charged under R.A. No. 9165 during
the pendency of the proceedings in the
Regional Trial Court. Section 20 further expressly requires that such property or income derived therefrom should remain in custodia legis
in all that time and that no bond shall be admitted for the release of it.
The status of the car (or any other article confiscated in relation to the unlawful act)
for the duration of the trial in the RTC as being in custodia legis is primarily intended to preserve it AS EVIDENCE and to
ensure its availability as such. To release it before the judgment is rendered is to deprive the trial court and the parties access
to it as evidence. Consequently, that photographs
were ordered to be taken of the car was not enough, for mere photographs might not fill in fully the evidentiary need of the
Prosecution. As such, the RTC's assailed orders were issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction for being in contravention with the express language of Section 20 of R.A. No. 9165.”

To bar the forfeiture of the tools and instruments belonging to a third person, therefore, there must be an indictment charging
such third person either as a principal, accessory, or accomplice.
Release of property
Property seized (not illegal per se) must be returned to the person from whom it was taken or to person who is entitled to its
possession if:
• No criminal prosecution;
 • Unreasonable delay in prosecution
*upon the termination of case

ART 46. Penalties to be imposed on principals in general The penalties provided for in the RPC are the penalties imposed
on principals for the consummated felony.
There are, however, certain provisions where a penalty is provided for a frustrated stage or attempted stage of a felony.

ART 47 When death penalty imposed Must be imposed in all cases under existing laws:
Except:
-below 18 yrs of age;
-more than 70 yrs of age;
-required majority in SC is not obtained

ART 48 Complex Crimes

In complex crimes, at least two crimes are committed but they constitute only one crime, as only one penalty is imposed
upon the offender. This is intended to benefit the offender who is, in the eyes of the law, less criminally perverse than on one
who commits two or more separate and independent crimes.
Two kinds of complex crimes:
Compound Crime – a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies.
Ex: throwing a hand grenade at a group of people causing death or injuries to several in the group.
Complex Crime Proper – one offense is a necessary means for committing the other.
Ex: falsifying cedulas so as to collect fees from persons to whom they are issued. Compound Crime
Requisites:
• One single act
• The single act produces two or more grave or less grave felonies
One single act
• Throwing a hand grenade into a group of people is a single act
• Placing a bomb in an airplane is a single act
• Firing a gun once is a single act
Two or more grave or less grave felonies.
In case the single act produces light felonies, they are either treated as:
-separate offenses; or
-absorbed. The rule that light felonies are absorbed should only be applied when there is only one victim.
Pp vs DE LOS SANTOS, GR No. 131588, March 27, 2011
“The slight physical injuries caused by GLENN to the ten other victims through reckless imprudence, would, had they been
intentional, have constituted light felonies. Being light felonies, which are not covered by Art 48, they should be treated and
punished as separate offenses. Separate information should have, therefore, been filed.”
Several offenders and several victims
Where there are several offenders and it cannot be ascertained who among them killed the several deceased, there is only one
crime committed. This ruling should only be applied when it cannot be ascertained who among the offenders killed the victims
(Sanidad, April 30, 2003; Lawas, June 30, 1955;
Abellla, Aug 31, 1979) Complex crime proper.
Requisites:
• At least two offenses;
• One or some must be necessary means to commit the other;
• Both offenses must be punished under the same statute.
At least two offenses
Falsification as means to commit malversation (Barbas) Usurpation of official functions as a means to commit simple seduction
Necessary means
Necessary does not mean indispensable o/w the offense would be considered as an element of the offense and the result
would be one felony committed.
The other crime must be a means to commit not to conceal. If the other crime is used to conceal the other, they are separate
offenses.
APPLICABILITY OF ART. 48
Art. 48 is applicable only when the RPC does not provide a specific penalty for a Special Complex Crime, ex: Kidnapping w/
Murder of Homicide, Robbery w/ Homicide, Rape with Homicide
The primary intention of rape and after thought nlng ang pagkuha sa bag na LV. That was merely an afterthought. There was
no need anymore for force or intimidation. Dapat RAPE w/
ROBBERY.
FORCIBLE ABDUCTION WITH RAPE
The abduction is a necessary means to commit rape. This should only be applied to the first rape. If subsequent rapes are
committed, they are separate felonies, since the abduction was no longer necessary for their commission.

PENALTY FOR COMPLEX CRIME

• The penalty is for the most serious crime committed to be applied in its maximum period.
CONTINUED CRIME.
• A continued, continuing or continuous crime is not specifically provided for in the RPC. The principles on continued
crime are based on a single criminal impulse and should result in one criminal liability.
• The difference in DELA CRUZ and ENGUERO is that in DELA CRUZ there was evidence that there was a general
plan to commit robbery in the vicinity of the eight households. In ENGUERO no such evidence was presented.

ART. 49. PENALTY WHEN CRIME DIFFERENT FROM THAT INTENDED

• This article is only applicable in error in personae
• In aberratio ictus two crimes are committed, therefore, Art. 48 (complex crimes) is applicable;
• In praeter intentionem, the offender is liable for the crime actually committed.

RULES
RULE 1
- Penalty for felony committed is higher than penalty for felony intended: Penalty for felony with lower penalty imposed in the
maximum.
RULE 2
• Penalty for felony committed is lower than penalty for felony intended: Penalty for felony with lower penalty imposed
in maximum.
ART. 50-57
 • Rules in determining the imposable penalties for accomplices and accessories of frustrated and attempted felonies.
• Degree is one entire penalty
• Period is one of the three equal portions of a divisible penalty
• A period when prescribed by the RPC as a penalty for a felony is considered a degree.

ART. 60. EXCEPTIONS

• The rules in Art. 50-57 are not applicable where the law specifically provides for a penalty for a frustrated or
attempted state of a felony…
ART. 61. RULES FOR GRADUATING PENALTIES
Basis for graduation of penalties is the scale in Art. 71.
• Death
• Rec. perp
• Rec. temp - Pr. Mayor
• Pr. Corr
• Arr mayor - Destierro
• Arr. Menor
• Public censure
• Fine
1st Rule. SINGLE AND INDIVISIBLE
The penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following.

Death Reclusion Perpetua – penalty

Reclusion Temporal – penalty next lower in degree
2nd Rule. TWO INDIVISIBLE PERNALTIES OR ONE OR MORE DIVISIBLE PENALTIES TO BE IMPOSED TO THEIR
FULL EXTENT.
The penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following the lesser of the penalties prescribed.
 Two indivisible:
Death –
---------- PARRICIDE
Reclusion Perpetua Reclusion Temporal

2nd Rule. ONE OR MORE DIVISIBLE PENALTIES TO BE IMPOSED TO THEIR FULL EXTENT.
One divisible penalty to be imposed to its full extent.
Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Temporal – penalty
Prision Mayor – penalty next lower in degree
Two divisible penalties to be imposed to their full extent.
Prision Mayor –
----- penalty
Prision Correcional –
Arresto Mayor – penalty next lower in degree

3rd Rule. ONE OR TWO INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES AND THE MAXIMUM PERIOD OF ANOTHER DIVISIBLE PENALTY
The penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the medium and minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty
and the maximum period of that immediately following.

4th Rule. PENALTY IS COMPOSED OF SEVERAL PERIODS

(at least 3)
The penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the period immediately following the minimum prescribed and of
the two next following either from the penalty prescribed or the penalty immediately following.
5th Rule. NOT SPECIALLY PROVIDED FOR IN RULES 1-4.
Proceed by analogy.
• If the penalty consists of two periods, the penalty next lower in degree is the penalty consisting of two periods
immediately down the scale.
 • If the penalty consists only of one period, the penalty next lower in degree is the next period immediately down the
scale

ART 62. Application of mitigating, aggravating circumstance and habitual delinquency

Par 1 1st rule. Aggravating circumstance which in themselves constitute or are included by law in defining the crime – no effect
“by means of fire” not taken into consideration in arson
“dwelling” in robbery with force upon things
“abuse of confidence” in qualified theft
Taking advantage of public position and committed by a syndicate – maximum regardless of mitigating circumstance
Syndicate – two or more persons
ART 62 Par 2 Inherent
When the aggravating circumstance is inherent in the crime – no effect
Evident premeditation inherent in robbery and theft
ART 62 Par 3 Circumstance relating to the persons participating in the crime
• Moral attributes of the offender
Ex. ​ evident premeditation (aggravating)
​ Passion or obfuscation (mitigating)
• Private relations of offender and offended party Ex. ​ Relationship e.g. father and son
• Any other personal cause
Ex. ​ Minority
​ Insanity
​ Recidivism
In these three instances the aggravating or mitigating circumstances shall affect only those to whom such
circumstance is present.
ART 62 par 4. Circumstance consisting in the material exec of the crime
Material execution – treachery Means employed – poison, fire, etc.
Affects only those who had knowledge of them of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein.
ART 62 Par 5 Habitual Delinquency
Rules on habitual delinquency
-refers only to certain crimes: serious and less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa and falsification
-it results in an additional penalty; not merely an increase in the penalty
-the additional penalty is imposed upon a third conviction -the 10 years shall always be computed from the last conviction
OR release.
-the subsequent crimes must be committed after conviction of the former crime
ART 63 Indivisible penalties
Single Indivisible Penalty – imposed regardless of the presence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance Two
Indivisible Penalties:
a. One aggravating – greater penalty
b. No mitigating no aggravating – lesser penalty
• Some mitigating no aggravating - lesser penalty
• Both – offset according to number and importance
ART 64 penalties which contain 3 periods
Rule 1. No aggravating and no mitigating - medium period
Rule 2. Only a mitigating – minimum
Rule 3. Only an aggravating – maximum
Rule 4. When there are both aggravating and mitigating circumstances the court shall offset one against the other
Two or more mitigating and no aggravating
Rule 5. Two or more mitigating and no aggravating circumstance - penalty next lower in degree in the period applicable
according to the number and nature of circumstance. This is called a Privileged Mitigating Circumstance.
The mitigating circumstance that constitutes the privileged mitigating circumstance can no longer be considered in deter
imposable period.

ART 65 dividing penalties (divisible) in 3 equal portions

Step 1. Determine the duration of the penalty in its entirety by ascertaining the minimum and max
Step 2. Determine the time included in the penalty prescribed by subtracting the min from the max. the min subtracted from
must not include the 1 day.
Step 3. The difference should be divided into 3 equal portions Step 4. The minimum (including the 1 day) is the minimum of the
minimum period. Add the quotient to the minimum and you have the maximum of your minimum period.
Step 5. Add 1 day to the maximum of the minimum period and you have the minimum of the medium period. Add the quotient
to the minimum (w/o including the one day) and you have the maximum of the medium period of the penalty
Step 6. Add 1 day to the maximum of the medium and you have the minimum of the maximum period of the penalty. Add the
quotient to the minimum (w/o including the one day) and you have the maximum of the maximum period of the penalty.
Prision correctional med and max
Step 1. Determine the duration of the penalty in its entirety by ascertaining the min and max. 2 yrs. 4 months and 1 day to 6 yrs.
Step 2. Determine the time included in the penalty prescribed by subtracting the minimum from the maximum. The minimum
subtracted from must not include the 1 day.
6 years ​ ​ ​ 5​ years 12 months
- ​ ​ ​ or
• years 4 months ​ 2​ years 4 months
_______________ ​ ​ ________________
• years 8 months ​ 3​ years 8 months

Step 3. The difference should be divided into three equal portions.

1 year 2 months 20 days
3) ​ 3 years 8 months
​ 3 years 6 months
​ 2​ months or 60 days
​ ​ ​ 60 days
​ ​ ​ ​ x

Step 4 The minimum (including the 1 day) is the minimum of the minimum period. Add the quotient to the minimum and you
have the maximum of your minimum period.
2 years 4 months
+
 • year 2 months 20 days
-------------------------------3 years 6 months 20 days

• years 4 months 1 day – 3 years 6 months and 20 days

Step 5 Add 1 day to the maximum of the minimum period and you have the minimum of te medium period. Add the quotient to
the minimum (w/o including the one day) and you have the maximum of the medium period of the penalty.
• years 6 months 20 days
+
1 year 2 months 20 days
---------------------------------4 years 9 months 10 days
• years 6 months 21 days – 4 years 9 months 10 days
Step 6 Add 1 day to the maximum of the medium and you have the minimum of the maximum period of the penalty. Add the
quotient to the minimum of the maximum period of the penalty.
• years 9 months 10 days
+
1 year 2 months 20 days
----------------------------------
5 years 11 months 30 days or 6 years
4 years 9 months 11 days – 6 years
ART 66 Imposition of fines
Wealth or means of the culprit is the primary consideration
Mitigating and aggravating circumstance shall also be considered
ART 67 penalty when accident is present
Accident is an exempting circumstance under Art 12, par 4. If not all elements are present then the offender is punished in the
same manner as a person liable for reckless imprudence under Art 365
Art 68 penalty upon a person under 18
RA 9344
15 years and under – no criminal liability (intervention)
Above 15 below 18 – exempt unless acting with discernment (diversion)
ART 69 crime not wholly excusable
Some of the elements of a justify or exempting circumstance is present.
Majority.
One or two degrees lower. Privileged mitigating circumstance. ART 70 Service of Sentence
Simultaneous if the nature of the penalties allow otherwise the penalties must be served successively.
Disqualification, suspension, destierro, censure, civil interdiction, confiscation and costs are penalties that may be
served simultaneously.
Penalties of imprisonment
Multiple penalties consisting of imprison have to be served successively
The order of severity in Art 71 must be observed. The most severe must be served first.
Three-fold rule
A convicts sentence shall not exceed more than 3 times the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties
imposed on him
Shall not exceed 40 yrs
Does not include the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment

ART 71 Graduation of penalties

Under RA 9346 death has been effectively eliminated from the list of imposable penalties under Art 71
This affects not only the consummated stage and the principals but also for the frustrated and attempted stage as well with the
respect to the accomplice and accessory.
ART 25 Classification of ART 70 SeverityART 71 Graduation
Penalties
Death (capital)
Death Death
Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Perpetua Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Temporal
Reclusion Temporal Reclusion Temporal
Abs Disq
Prision Mayor Prision Mayor
Spc Disq
Prision CorrectionalPrision Correctional
Prision Mayor
Arresto Mayor Arresto Mayor
Prision Correctional
Arresto Menor Destierro
Arresto Mayor
Destierro Arresto Menor
Suspension
Perpetua Ab Disq Public Censure
Destierro
Temporal Ab Disq
Arresto Menor (light) Suspension
Public Censure Pub Censure

ART 72-74
Art. 72 Satisfaction of civil liability is based on the chronological order that they are imposed.
Art 73 Accessory penalties under Arts 40-45 are deemed imposed.
Subsidiary imprisonment not an accessory penalty
Art 74. Death shall not be imposed through the process of graduation.
ART 75 Increasing or decreasing fine by one or more degrees.
Fines are increased or decreased by one-fourth (1/4) of the maximum.
There must be a minimum and a maximum for this article to be applicable.
Only the maximum is increased or decreased, the minimum is never changed.
Increasing or decreasing the fine
Fine of P200-P2,000
¼ of P2,000 = P500
One degree lower would be a fine of P200 – P1,500
Two degrees lower would be a fine of P200 – P1,000

ART 76 Legal period of divisible penalties

The intention of the law is to give the three periods of a penalty equal or uniform duration due to the ff:
-equal and uniform durations
-does not require that they be used even when the periods of a prescribed penalty correspond to different divisible penalties
-will result in the periods not being of equal and uniform duration
-Art 65 requires that a divisible penalty be divided into three equal portions
-making an exception out of a penalty composed of periods corresponding to different penalties would have no legal basis.
Arresto Mayor does not follow the general rule.
Minimum – 1 month 1 day to 2 months
Medium – 2 months 1 day to 4 months
Maximum – 4 months 1 day to 6 months
ART 77 Complex Penalty
Complex penalty is a penalty composed of three distinct penalties, i.e., Reclusion temporal to death
*lightest – minimum *next – medium
*most severe – maximum

Indeterminate Sentence Law

A penalty with a minimum and a maximum instead of a straight penalty.
Authorizes the release of a convict after having served the minimum of his sentence.
ISL does not apply
• Convicted; death or life imprisonment;
• Convicted; of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason;
 • Convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition, or espionage;
• Convicted of piracy;
• Habitual delinquents;
• Escaped from confinement or evaded sentence;
• Violated the terms of the conditional pardon;
• Imprisonment; maximum does not exceed 1 year;
• Those already sentenced by final judgement at the time of the approval of the law. (Dec. 5, 1933)
10.Destierro or suspension
RPC and Special Laws
Special Law
*minimum – not less than the minimum prescribed by law
*maximum – not exceed the maximum fixed by law
RPC
*minimum – shall be w/in the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense.
*maximum – that, in view of the attending circumstance. Could be properly imposed under the rules of the RPC.
Steps
• Ascertain the penalty prescribed for the offense w/o considering the attendant circumstance
• Use the said penalty as the basis for determining the minimum, which is the penalty next lower in degree. This is
the minimum of the indeterminate sentence.
• Fix the maximum by imposing the penalty prescribed by the law taking into consideration the attending
circumstances.

Homicide, no mitigating no aggravating

• Homicide is punished by Rec Temp.
• Penalty next lower in degree to Rec Temp is Prision Mayor. Prision Mayor is the minimum of your indeterminate
sentence.
• Maximum is Rec Temp in its medium period since there is no aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
 • The indeterminate sentence, therefore, is Prision Mayor to Reclusion Temp Medium.
Frustrated Homicide w/ Direct Assault
*frustrated homicide – Prision May; Direct Assault – Prision Correctional Med-Max. Penalty for complex crime is for the graver
offense w/c is Prision Mayor.
*penalty next lower to Prision Mayor is Prision Correctional.
Prision Correctional is the minimum.
*max is Prision Mayor in its max (complex crime)
*indeterminate sentence is, therefore, Prision Correctional to Prision Mayor Maximum.
Privileged Mitigating Circumstance
General Rule is: find the penalty next lower in degree to the penalty prescribed by law w/o first considering the attending
circumstances.
Exception is: a privilege mitigating circumstance (two or more mitigating circumstance w/o any aggravating circumstance, Art 64
par 5). In this case the privileged mitigating circumstance is first applied to determine the basis for the minimum.
Estafa thru Falsification by a Public Officer with two mitigating and no aggravating (privileged mitigating
circumstance).
• Penalty for the more serious offense (falsification) is Prision Mayor.
• Apply the attending circumstance (privileged mitigating circumstance) first. One degree lower than Prision Mayor is
Prision Corr. (exception to the general rule)
• One degree lower than Prision Correctional is Arresto Mayor. Arresto Mayor is the minimum.
• Maximum is Prision Correctional in its max, because it is a complex crime.
• Indeterminate sentence is Arresto Mayor to Prision Correctional Maximum.

Homicide w/ Direct Assault; one privileged mitigating circumstance (minority) and one ordinary mitigating
circumstance. (plea of guilty)
• Homicide is the more serious offense (Rec Temp)
• Apply the privileged mitigating, next lower in degree is Prision Mayor. This is the basis for the minimum.
• One degree lower than Prision Mayor is Prision
Correctional. Prision Correctional is the minimum.